A Question. I Mean, Really
Hey, I have a question. Anybody know the answer here, or how to find out?
The "ex-gay" thing is going to be an issue as MCPS discusses a new curriculum. Some people are going to insist that the schools need to teach that you can stop being gay. They will say that there are thousands -- no, tens of thousands -- of people who have gone from being gay to being straight.
OK, so here's my question. How many people have gone from being straight to being gay?
We have seen a few news stories over the years. Some guy has a family, kids that prove he was, y'know, sexually active with his wife. And then he is identified looking for man-love on the Internet, or coming out of a gay bar, or some guy tells a reporter about their torrid affair.
It's a fairly common kind of story, and I have the idea there are a lot more of these than ones that go the other way, guys stopping being gay. But how many? Does anybody have any idea?
And ... does this straight-to-gay transition lend support to the "ex-gay" perspective, or undermine it? Does this mean that "change is possible," or were these guys gay to start with?
The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?
The "ex-gay" thing is going to be an issue as MCPS discusses a new curriculum. Some people are going to insist that the schools need to teach that you can stop being gay. They will say that there are thousands -- no, tens of thousands -- of people who have gone from being gay to being straight.
OK, so here's my question. How many people have gone from being straight to being gay?
We have seen a few news stories over the years. Some guy has a family, kids that prove he was, y'know, sexually active with his wife. And then he is identified looking for man-love on the Internet, or coming out of a gay bar, or some guy tells a reporter about their torrid affair.
It's a fairly common kind of story, and I have the idea there are a lot more of these than ones that go the other way, guys stopping being gay. But how many? Does anybody have any idea?
And ... does this straight-to-gay transition lend support to the "ex-gay" perspective, or undermine it? Does this mean that "change is possible," or were these guys gay to start with?
The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?
posted by JimK at 10:16 AM
271 Comments:
True conversion from gay to straight is virtually non-existant. Nicolosi, Executive Director of NARTH, uses the term "non-gay homosexual"; that is what "ex-gay" really means: a homosexual who doesn't "behave" like one, but still has same-sex attractions.
Introducing "ex-gays" to the curriculum will only lead to debate and confusion. If you want to be fair, you'll have to consider "ex-ex-gays" and all the stories that are attached with both terms (this includes all the types of therapies and the organisations that provide such therapies). There will have to be objective critical analysis of absolutely everything in order for there to be no bias. While we're at it, make sure to include everything over at queerbychoice.com (some of your "ex-straights") and analyse everything there too just to be fair.
Honestly now, you can't include anything like that in a curriculum; every "fact" would be based on anecdotal evidence. You can quote studies left and right (including the infamous Spitzer study), but if you were to really consider everything (which is only fair), you'll need to dedicate months and months of lessons just to provide the information. After that you'll need to start analysing all the material for flaws. Also don't forget new stories pop up all the time so it'll become an on-going thing.
Anyway, how much of above is suitable for a sex-ed curriculum? I'd say good luck even trying to get your head round all of it, let alone teach it to teenagers (in addition to all the real sex education).
The previous post illustrates why the original revised curriculum simply set forth basic facts as understood by the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations. Any mention of reparative therapy approaches -- not included in the original revised curriculum -- would have to include the statements of the American Medical Association, et al., condemning those approaches. My view is that since the discussion of sexual orientation is only a small part of the semester-long health education curriculum, it is not useful to get into that discussion in health classes, any more than it would be useful to have discussion of "Intelligent Design" in biology classes.
At bottom, virtually all (and perhaps all) proponents of reparative therapies base their arguments on their theological beliefs. Their "scientific" arguments are no more scientific than those presented by the Intelligent Design proponents, whose psuedo-scientific arguments were shredded in the Dover decision.
Theological disputation does not belong in health classes, which, as Ron Reagan, Jr., observed when interviewing Jim Kennedy and Peter Sprigg last year, are essentially science classes.
I've always assumed that the "straight to gay" phenomenon was nothing more than extreme repression.
Jim,
The only way to deal with this issue fairly is to distinguish between desire (biology) and behavior(sociology). Those men who had sex with women but then were looking for boyfriends were doing what gay men in America have been doing for at least a century -- trying to fit in, have a full life, and fulfill their sexual desire surreptitiously as best they could under the circumstances. What pains me is the deception of their wives and girlfriends, as effectively portrayed in "Brokeback Mountain." I don't doubt a gay man can love a woman, and I see nothing wrong with that as long as he's up front with her. My having been married to women didn't make me a man, and a gay man having sex with a woman doesn't make him heterosexual.
One can live forever a life of misery in cognitive dissonance between one's desires and one's behavior. One can even point to people who call themselves "true Christians" and then violate every cardinal principle of Christianity. Or look at Jack Abramoff, who styles himself as an orthodox Jew. We call that a "shonda," a terrible shame.
PFOX and groups like them consider a gay guy that is either celibate or who marries a woman to have become "ex-gay," right?
So has anybody ever collected any data on the number of men who, in their adolescence or early adulthood, dated or married women, and then switched to a homosexual orientation? It certainly seems relevant to the question that we know is going to come up.
The fact is, PFOX has a member on the MCPS citizens advisory committee. The whole reason he's there is to pressure the district to include teachings about "ex-gays."
It's going to come up.
JimK
Well, initially they (including the late, lamented Socarides) insisted that the conversion was real and included desire. The psych community by challenging them forced them to shift their rhetoric and now they (including Throckmorton) just say that gays can be helped through Jesus therapy to orient themselves towards women and become good husbands, but without losing their homosexual desire.
No, there are no numbers on this, or on many other basic issues because there is no money and no courage. They claim tens of thousands and can never produce more than a few dozen, which is pretty pathetic if being straight is so great that one would want to shout it from the mountaintops.
So, what should be taught? I prefer nothing, but if something has to said, I would say that fundamentalist-Christian-based therapy can help a very small number of men control their sexual impulses but that they are highly susceptible to recidivism. Similarly, straight men are highly susceptible to environmental stimuli, such as camping with other men in the Rockies or bunking with fellow inmates, and may participate in sex with other men but are very likely to prefer sex with women in the future.
Jim
An obituary in the Post in the past week was for a psychiatrist who disagreed with the 1973 APA decision, saying it was done for political/social reasons. Sounds like the same thing Cilly quoted a psychiatrist saying a couple of months ago. Anyway, this guy treated homosexuals and claimed a one-third success rate. Sounds like a good place to start if your inquiry is sincere and you have an open mind.
"The underlying question, I guess, is -- if they teach about "ex-gays," shouldn't the schools teach about "ex-straights," too?"
Why can't the schools teach the truth and say they don't know if sexual orientation is chosen and irresistable? The problem is that certain people have decided that having everyone endorse your sexual impulses is a civil right and they want to bolster their case by asserting that homosexuality has no element of choice. There is no support for this assertion.
Did it ever occur to you that anybody has the capacity to either "sexual orientation"? That everyone is in some sense "bi"? That the whole thing is not a "orientation" but a preference? It's the most logical explanation for the stuff you're talking about?
Anon
If you'd attended our forum you'd have seen some of this research. Of course anyone can, with a little friction and a little imagination, have "sex" with anyone or with any of various inanimate objects or, even, animals. Some people, especially some women, don't really have a strong preference in terms of the sex of their partner, but just want it to be somebody they like or feel aroused by. Not many guys feel that way, and I don't think it's all cultural taboo, either. But it is hard to find research that shows real bisexual men. Guys tend to be attracted to one or the other sex.
So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people. When you hit puberty or thereabout, some people in the environment get your attention, and some don't. Very few people report making a choice in the matter. I know I didn't, when I got to a certain age I just knew what I liked, and the other option never even occurred to me. I read where Jerry Falwell was saying he felt the same way, no choice in the matter.
JimK
"So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... So the problem with your idea that it's just a preference, even though it would be "logical," as you say, is that ... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people. , at least not male people."
Jim, show some consistency. You just said in your post that it's "fairly common" and now you're saying "... not many people really feel that way, at least not male people." I said it was the logical conclusion of the information you were posting. Are you saying it's common or not for someone straight to become gay?
Anonymous said...
Jim
An obituary in the Post in the past week was for a psychiatrist who disagreed with the 1973 APA decision, saying it was done for political/social reasons. Sounds like the same thing Cilly quoted a psychiatrist saying a couple of months ago. Anyway, this guy treated homosexuals and claimed a one-third success rate. Sounds like a good place to start if your inquiry is sincere and you have an open mind.
********************
December 28, 2005
http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/12/socarides_dies_1.html#more
Socarides Dies: A Grandfather of Reparative Therapy
Charles W. Socarides, a grandfather of the reparative therapy movement and co-founder of the antigay National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, died Dec. 25 in New York. He was 83 years old.
According to the New York Times, Socarides' books included "The Overt Homosexual" (Grune & Stratton, 1968) and "Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far -- A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society" (Adam Margrave Books, 1995). He helped form NARTH in 1992. According to a 1999 Human Rights Campaign brochure (see footnote 8), Socarides misrepresented the American Psychoanalytic Association's position on homosexuality in a published paper and court affidavit:
Charles Socarides has also run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization's attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued. Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA's policy of non-discrimination "and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian," according to Roughton.
Socarides blamed homosexuality on the Freudian notion of absent fathers and attentive mothers. But he was a less than exemplary role model for fathers and for monogamous marriage; he was married four times, and his son Richard is an openly gay senior executive at New Line Cinema and former Clinton administration liaison on gay and lesbian issues.
The elder Socarides claimed to have helped 35 percent of his patients "become heterosexual" and to have helped additional gay patients reduce their sexual impulses. The Times does not explain or document Socarides' claim.
From the Times:
"Socarides outlived his time," Gilbert Herdt, an anthropologist who is the director of the National Sexuality Resource Center in San Francisco, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "He became a kind of anachronism, and a tragic one in the sense that he continued to inflict suffering on the lives of some gay and lesbian individuals and the L.G.B.T. community in general."
Of the relationship between Socarides and his gay son, the Times said:
In an interview yesterday, Richard Socarides said that he and his father managed to sustain a relationship, in part because both men refrained from discussing their work. "It was complex," he said. "We tried to relate to each other as father and son."
Does anyone know what the copyright laws in quoting passages from books ?
I would like to repeat here what is in my daughter's health text book.
The book is titled "Sex, Love and You" and does have a chapter on homosexuality.
The paragraph essentially says about homosexuality that we are really not sure what causes it, that it is probably a combination of factors including environmental, genetic, social, and science is not sure why some people end up having same sex desires. It then points out that most people are not homosexual, quotes a percentage of 1%, and then tells the kids if they think they are homosexual that not to worry about it, chances are that they are probably not (based on pure percentages).
Note this is in a context of a sex ed course that continually encourages abstinence until marriage, but also teaches all the types of birth control.
I read the chapter and was quite happy with how the topic was presented. And, after having followed a lot of the discussion here, I don't think there was really anything objectionable to even TTF folks in the introductory sections. A few of the following paragraphs had a discussion on how praticing homosexual behavior was a sin (this is a Catholic school textbook) - but the paragraphs that introduced the subject were really quite benign.
I am going to have to figure out where I put this book (it was her freshman text book).
Anyone know what the rules are on quoting ?
Anon, part of what I said is that people can have "sex" with ... nonoptimal partners. We have recently had a mayor in Spokane Washington, and I think a governor somewhere, maybe New Jersey, who, after years of marriage, were more or less outed practicing homosexuality.
I'm not sure a guy would throw away a marriage and a career on something that was just a preference. I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands, but everybody seems to agree that we have a tendency one way or the other, at least us guys.
Now, I don't find it impossible that some guys like both men and women, and just choose what's handy or what society approves of, though science has not found this to be a common experience. As you say, it's "logical," but it doesn't happen very often. It sounds like you might feel that way, I never did.
JimK
Like, here, what do you make of this?
Baptist leader accused of soliciting male prostitute.
How come you never hear it the other way? Where are the thousands of, I mean tens of thousands of gay guys that are going straight?
These straight-to-gay guys seem like they're everywhere. Gay-to-straight, you never can find.
I'd like to see those numbers.
Jim
Theresa
In the context of this discussion, I think it falls under the "fair use" doctrine. Am I right, David?
"How come you never hear it the other way? Where are the thousands of, I mean tens of thousands of gay guys that are going straight?"
Maybe because when it happens, no one considers it a scandal.
Thanks for the gay advocacy spin, Kay. Try reading the guy's books.
Theresa,
I am very sure that the kind of quoting you want to do falls under the "fair use" rule. To be sure you are being fair to the authors and publisher, I think you could list the title, publisher and primary author ("Green Eggs and Cholesterol: Dietary Guidelines for Preschoolers," Random Hut, T Diesel, et al.) in your first post, then you can just refer folks back to that post if they ask about your source. Frankly, I don't think you have to go quite that far, but it would provide almost the level of attribution required in any academic citaion.
I appreciate your concern for copyright and credit; we are so often able to bypass this step by just providing a link to the on-line source. This is especially easy with so many newspapers now publishing web editions.
What grade is this textbook written for? (she asked ungrammatically)
Anon,
Socarides, besides being another of the generation of Freudians whom your colleagues despise on all fronts except this one, is also one of the cohort of virulent homophobes who happened to make his own son gay, according to his theories. He believed that it was the father's relationship in the first few months after birth that determines a male child's sexuality (note never any discussion of girl's, but Freudians rarely bothered, since girls usually don't have penises).Of course, he provided no scientific way to test this, so like virutally all Freudian contributions, fundamentally the idea is useless.
But let's assume for a moment he is correct, and environmental influences (father-son relationship) in the first few months) is the critical issue. That means it's the father's fault, not the son's. It implies nothing about treatment, other than to fall into the same category as "biologically pre-natal" -- it can't be changed. Why would a believer then hound and shame the son for the father's sins (and don't give me a Biblical rationalization)?
And what would happen if his views on parenting were somehow to be tested, prospectively, and the kids turned out gay at the same rate as before? Would you accept the fact that he's wrong, and being gay is just fine? I doubt it.
Oh, his son turned out to be Clinton's LGBT liaison back in the 90's.
This was her freshman Catholic highschool text book. I don't know if they specified a recommended grade level or not. I will look for it this evening (I didn't leave it out, because I have a almost 10 and 12 year old that I didn't want reading it...).
Theresa
I am sure if there were many,many gay guys going straight- Knight, Spriggs and crew would have them on billboards, TV and the net.
Theresa wrote:
"Anyone know what the rules are on quoting ?"
I am sure that Tish is correct. Just quoting a paragraph from an entire textbook is certainly within the "fair use" rule. When you post the paragraph, could you please include the name of the author, the publisher, and the year of publication?
Theresa,
I'm curious. The textbook you describe used at a Catholic school seems pretty innocuous. Why don't you want your 10 and 12 year old reading it? Given what they get from their friends, online and from society at large, I would think you might even encourage them to read it. Of course, most parents have trouble talking about these issues, so I can understand your anxiety, but given the alternatives, it sounds like this textbook would be rather benign for your children, and far better than the alternatives considering your perspective.
Anonymous said...
Thanks for the gay advocacy spin, Kay. Try reading the guy's books.
_____________
No thanks... we will rely on you to quote from them in your "anti gay advocacy" spin.
"Of course, he provided no scientific way to test this, so like virutally all Freudian contributions, fundamentally the idea is useless."
Dana, the AMA and APA have provided no scientific way to test their assertions and you don't seem bothered. I only brought this up because Jim was again feigning ignorance about converted gays and this guy claimed many cases where he provided effective therapy.
Why do you feel so threatened by the idea of environmental influences? You can still push your misguided civil rights ideas. Science hasn't provided any evidence that orientation is biologically determined.
This guy claimed he "cured" gay people so it is true-but the AMA and APS are political so their stance is false. Who's got the spin here, Anon?
Look, Anon, for the past 100 years psychiatrists and psychologists have been trying to convert gay and trans persons. The literature is replete with all their attempts, from talk therapy to drug therapy to aversion therapy to electroshock and lobotomy. I read many of those studies when I was younger.
The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM was because of that history of failure. It was overwhelming, so for you to say there is no evidence is absolute nonsense.
The main human point you miss consistently is that people tried for decades and decades to change, went to psychiatrists for help, and could not be helped. They finally gave up, decided to just be themselves, and now they're tired of being told to change by people who simply don't get it, and don't want to get it.
What environmental influences are you talking about? I'm who I am because of an environmental influence, a toxin called DES, which was prescribed by my medical colleagues for 23 years to prevent miscarriage (18 years after it was proven not to work). But this toxin worked in utero, so it is both innate and environmental. Is that satisfactory for you? Or is all you really care about the nonsense about absent fathers and doting mothers?
Okay, so this from "Sex, Love and You"...making the right decision.
By Tom and Judy Lickona with William Boudrea, M.D.
Printed by Ave Maria Press, Inc out of Notre Dame, IN
copyrighted in 2003.
It also appears to have been approved by the Catholic church...
As I review it more, I really like this book. I will have to quote you a few of the chapters on contraception...
Some excerpts from the chapter on Homosexuality (thirteen):
They start by introducing Joe, a homosexual who has AIDS and stop sexual activity.
"Joe pointed out what the medical and behavioral sciences acknowledge : we don't fully understand what cuases a person to be sexually attracted to somone of the same sex. Genetic disposion, homones, family upbringing, peer experiences, and a person's sexual history are among the factors that may influence sexual orientation. How much influences any of these factor exerts may vary from person to person."
....
"Who is Homosexual?
Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual ?"
...
example of someone they know..
"Very few people are homosexual. You may have heard the statistic that "one out of ten people is gay or lesbian." That estimate turns out to be much too high and based on faulty research. Three recent sudies have found a much lower figure.
They cite 3 studies, 1 ) a Minnesota study that said 26% of 12-year olds said they were uncertain of their sexual orientation and then at 18, only 5% were unsure and 98% of those that said they were sure said they were heterosexual..2) the Guttmacher study and another study in France, both of which put the number at 1%.
More from Sex, Love and You...
"You may know people who tease, pick on, or are even violent to those they suspect to be homosexual. these behaviors are clearly wrong because they are not loving, respectful, or just.
May people, however, confuse respect with approval. They think that if you respect people who are gay or lesbian, you must also approve of their sexual lifestyle. This is a mistaken belief. Ethics requires us to respect people, not their actions. "
Okay, so this make the point that the Catholic faith holds that homosexual behavior is wrong, which clearly isn't going to fly in a public school. But I don't think you can make the statement that homosexual sex is just fine and dandy either, without starting to tread moral ground that you shouldn't be touching. Like the famous "baptist church is biblically misguided" impression that the judge believed the last curriculum implied.
Okay, moving on to the chapter on condoms... I will have to send this to Dr. Ruth as well..this is a far more reasonable treatment..
Wow -
Check this chapter out from sex, love and you :
Doesn't using a Condom make Sex Responsible ?
A great many young people have heard-and believed-the "safe sex" message. Condoms are promoted by the media and many public health and school programs as the way to pass unharmed through the minefield of premarital sex. Use a condom and you won't get pregnant. Use a condom and you won't get AIDS or other STDs.
Do the facts back up these claims? They don't as
Jenny’s story shows. The medical facts show that condoms educe the risk of pregnancy and AIDS but not to an acceptable level. A very significant risk remains. And con¬doms provide virtually no protection against some of the most common STDs like human papillomavirus and chlamydia.
Before we look at why that's true, we'd like to address a question you may be wondering about: If condoms don't make sex safe, how come so many people are promoting the "safe sex" message?
One reason is the pressure to "do something," particu¬larly about the spread of HIV/AIDS. The safe sex/condom campaign seems like a "quick fix." A Time magazine report summarized the dilemma:
In such a climate of fear, moral debate seemed like a lux¬ury. Get them the information, give them the protection. We can talk about morality later. There is a fishbowl full of condoms in the nurse's office, help yourself.
We've asked people who promote the condom "solution" to teen pregnancy and STDs :
. "Do you really believe
that condoms make sex safe?"
One person answered: "No, there are still risks. But most teenagers are going to continue to have sex no matter what we adults say, and condoms are safer than using no protection at all. We're afraid that if we emphasize the risks of condoms, kids might not use them."
"Is this logical reasoning? It is undeniably true that many young people will continue to have sex no matter what anybody tells them about the dangers-just as a lot of young people will continue to do drugs or drive while drinking despite the well-known dangers of those behav¬iors.
But is that any reason to withhold from everyone accu¬rate information about the dangers of premarital sex, even when you're using a condom? Obviously not.
So let's look at the real risks that are still present even if sexually active singles use so-called "protection."
0'l~ Condoms and Pregnancy
You can use a condom and still get pregnant. A variety of studies find that condoms have an annual failure rate in preventing pregnancy of 10 to 30%.
"Annual failure rate" means that, if you are using a condom to try to prevent pregnancy, in the course of just one year you have at least a 10% chance of getting pregnant. One study found a 36% pregnancy failure rate among teenagers, who tend to make more mistakes than older per¬sons in using condoms.3
For any condom user, the chance of eventually getting pregnant goes up steadily if the user continues to rely on a condom for contraception year after year. One medical journal estimated that a girl who begins having sexual intercourse at age 14 and relies on a condom for protection has a 50% chance of getting pregnant before she graduates from high school.
The fact that a young woman can still get pregnant even when using a condom is pretty interesting when you con¬sider that a woman is fertile-able to conceive-only a few days out of her entire menstrual cycle. How is it possible for pregnancy to happen at these rates for couples who have sex with a condom?
First of all, there's human error. Teenagers aren't the only ones who don't always use condoms correctly. Sexual excitement
or the influence of alcohol often interferes with correct usage. There's a big difference between laboratory studies of condom effectiveness (using fluid-filled condoms to simulate real conditions) and real-life sexual encounters involving less-than-perfect human beings.
Besides "user failure," there is also "product failure."
Condoms sometimes have holes. The sperm can get through a hole.
Pregnancy may also occur when a condom slips off or breaks during intercourse. A study by Dr. James Trussel, reported in Family Planning Perspectives found that con¬doms slipped off or broke 8% of the time during vaginal intercourse-regardless of the condom brand, the use of additional lubricant, or people's past experience in using condoms.
I nteresti ngly, several stud ies have shown that high schools that have distributed condoms to their students have generally not been successful in reducing student pregnancies (even advocates of condom distribution have admitted this fact). In some cases the pregnancy rate has actually gone up. "
It goes on citing study after study after study - and pointing out that the effective rates of protecting kids from STD transmission are even less.
Pretty frightening stuff when we consider what the old curriculum thought was okay to teach "99% effective".
Dana -
I didn't leave the book out because my almost ten year old still does not know what sex is (I have not told him, and he has not heard it on the playground yet).
he does know the finger gesture for sex (courtesy of my 15 year old), but doesn't understand what the finger gesture means.
He knows sex makes babies, that it involves a man and a woman, and that is about it.
I don't think he needs to know this yet. And I am going to chance that he won't hear it discussed on the playground and he is certainly not allowed to watch any tv or movies where it might be shown or implied.
He is very excited about turning 10 and if he asks again I will tell him - I promised I would tell him when he is 10. we will see how quickly he remembers to ask.
theresa
Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"
JimK
The Catholic school health education book says, "And con¬doms provide virtually no protection against some of the most common STDs like human papillomavirus and chlamydia."
This statement is inaccurate according to the CDC. Here's what the CDC, under the George W. Bush administration, says about condoms, HPV, and chlamydia.
"While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
"Latex male condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of chlamydia."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm
Christine
"Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?""
sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender
"The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM was because of that history of failure."
I hope this is just a faux pas on your part, Dana. DSM should list disorders not just treatable disorders. The truth is modern psychiatry has not had much success treating many mental disorders.
Sorry, Anon, it was not a faux pas. It was not simply because it was resistant to treatment. The resistance to treatment forced clinicians to finally repsect and listen to their patients. In so doing they questioned their faulty assumptions and recognized that classifying a normal human sexual behavior, let alone a form of innate sexual desire, as a disease was wrong.
An analogy would be the treat for duodenal ulcers when I was in medical school, and the treatment today. Doctors thought they were caused by stress, so they tried to reduce stress. When they were finally able to believe their eyes and the research that they were bacterial infections (it took about twenty years for that to sink in), they began treating the infection and curing the disease. But had they never challenged their assumptions they could not have done so.
Theresa,
Thak you for your postings. They give us something with which to work in a calm and rational manner (so far). And thanks for answering my question.
However, you just mentioned your ten year old. How about the twelve year old?
I'll get into the specifics later.
More pretty frightening stuff. I can see why Ruth was more horrified than the rest of us by the video now.
Sex Love and You.
"But even when condoms do remain on and intact, they provide considerably less protection against sexually trans¬mitted disease than they do against pregnancy. Why is that so?
The first reason is this: Whereas a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (two to three days each month), a sexually transmitted disease can be passed on from partner to partner at any time of the month.
A second reason is an extremely important fact that is not emphasized nearly enough by sex educators: a condom covers only a portion of the genital area that is contacted during intercourse. A female's pubic area and vulva are not covered by the condom. Neither are a male's pubic area and scrotum.
That's a problem, because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillo¬mavirus, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria don't get through the condom itself, you can still get a disease because the con¬dom isn't covering enough of your genital region to prevent infection during sexual contact.
A third hazard: After intercourse, various potentially infectious sexual fluids are on both sides of the condom. As the condom is removed, these potentially contaminated fluids can be transmitted between partners.
Medical studies show that for all these reasons, con¬doms provide little or no protection against several of the STOs that are a danger to your health and your ability to bear children.
Condoms and HIV / AIDS
The threat of becoming infected with the deadly AIDS virus is often used as the justification for encouraging people to practice !!safe" or !!condom-protected" sex. But condoms do not provide adequate protection against HIV/AIDS.
In one study, the University of Miami Medical School monitored couples where one partner was HIV-infected. Within 18 months, among those couples that continued to have intercourse using a condom, 17% (3 people out of 18) of the previously uninfected partners had contracted the AIDS virus.
None of those who abstained from intercourse became infected.
In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31 %. 5
You might ask yourself: Would I fly on an airline whose planes fatally crashed 31 % of the time?
A 2000 study by the National Institutes of Health found that condoms were between 49% and 100% effective in preventing the spread of gonorrhea in men, but no effect was found for women. Also, the study found that serious diseases like chlamydia, chancroid, trichomoniasis, syphilis, and genital herpes showed no reduction with con¬dom use. These diseases also increase the risk of contract¬ing HIV.6
Why do condoms sometimes fail to prevent transmis¬sion of the AIDS virus? A clue was offered by two Canadian researchers at the 1990 World Health Organization confer¬ence on AIDS. Drs. Richard Gordon and Natalie Bjorklund of the University of Manitoba presented a study with this unusual title: !!If Semen Were Red: The Flow of Red Dye from the Tips of Condoms During Intercourse and Its Consequences for the AIDS Epidemic."
The study consisted of placing nontoxic red dye in the tips of condoms prior to their being used in sexual inter¬course. The researchers were able to determine that during intercourse, drops of this red dye were pushed up to the rim (open end) of the condom. They concluded that !!Ieakage over the rim may be a major source of condom failure." 7
But even when condoms do remain on and intact, they provide considerably less protection against sexually trans¬mitted disease than they do against pregnancy. Why is that so?
The first reason is this: Whereas a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (two to three days each month), a sexually transmitted disease can be passed on from partner to partner at any time of the month.
A second reason is an extremely important fact that is not emphasized nearly enough by sex educators: a condom covers only a portion of the genital area that is contacted during intercourse. A female's pubic area and vulva are not covered by the condom. Neither are a male's pubic area and scrotum.
That's a problem, because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillo¬mavirus, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria don't get through the condom itself, you can still get a disease because the con¬dom isn't covering enough of your genital region to prevent infection during sexual contact.
A third hazard: After intercourse, various potentially infectious sexual fluids are on both sides of the condom. As the condom is removed, these potentially contaminated fluids can be transmitted between partners.
Medical studies show that for all these reasons, con¬doms provide little or no protection against several of the STOs that are a danger to your health and your ability to bear children. "
"recognized that classifying a normal human sexual behavior, let alone a form of innate sexual desire, as a disease was wrong."
Dana
Do you feel all sexual desires are innate or only gender preferences? What I mean is, if say a person is attracted to animals or chains, is that innate or would it be acquired?
Dana -
I did not choose to tell my now twelve year old what sex was until she was almost eleven.
My then 14 year daughter realized the almost eleven year old daughter still didn't know and insisted I tell her.
I don't remember how much she asked about sex before that. I would have taken the same position I did with my son - you don't need to know that yet.
She is really not asking detailed questions about this yet. I don't see the need to broach a subject and educate her on things that aren't important to her yet and I feel she is too young for. Entirely different story with the 15 year old, clearly - who asks about everything and I think I have a pretty open relationship with.
But the 15 year didn't really start asking a lot of questions until late 7th early 8th grade.
So leaving out a book that might provoke questions and issues I really would rather she didn't start mulling yet is something I wouldn't do.
Ok - so I really have to start working now. I will check back later this evening....
"They give us something with which to work in a calm and rational manner (so far)."
Dana,
I think you'd have this experience a lot more if you'd encourage the TTF President to stop calling people names. Is that all part of the GLAAD strategic plan for your organization?
Theresa said...
"More pretty frightening stuff. I can see why Ruth was more horrified than the rest of us by the video now."
In referring to "Dr. Ruth" this is an understatement. "Dr. Ruth" came off as a nut trying her best to get on new CAC.
I mean swirlies and all.......
I asked, Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"
And Anon "answered," sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender
OK, so somebody help me out here. That answer of course is not clear at all. Let me list some things, you tell me if they are "homosexual behavior" or not, OK? (Here I am just referring to males, I'm afraid the lesbian thing is going to be even harder to pin down.) I think we'll agree that a guy putting his penis in the anus or mouth of another man is "homosexual behavior" on both people's part.
How about this: walking down the street holding hands with a guy? Homosexual behavior, or not? How about open-mouth kissing another guy? Does that count? How about flouncing through the grocery store in a fuschia gauze blouse tied at the waist, with teal harem pants and a saffron sash? Homosexual behavior? How about a guy wiggling his butt when he knows another guy is walking behind him? How about smiling and winking at a stranger who seems gay, and starting a conversation with them? How about putting on a wig and eye makeup and lip-synching to Barbra Streisand songs in front of the mirror? What about wearing silk hose and a garter belt under your business suit, and giggling to yourself all day because nobody knows? Is that acceptable, or is that "homosexual behavior?"
How about curling up on the sofa with your best friend, cuddling and eating popcorn and stroking one another's half-naked bodies while you watch old musicals on TV? Homosexual behavior? (It doesn't seem to be, by Anon's definition.)
Or do you only mean behaviors that result in ejaculation of semen into the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue.
JimK
Those CDC Fact Sheets haven't been updated since May 2004.
Another result of all those tax cuts apparently.
Theresa,
Thank you for providing us with this information. It is good to hear from rational - if different- viewpoints and certainly to be able to read what is in other texts and what other kids are learning.
I have to tell you though- when you ended one message- you said I have to send this to Dr. Ruth- and I was shocked. I was thinking of Ruth Westheimer as she was a part of the focus of a TV show about the 80's last week-I gather you meant Ruth Jacobs. But you had me going for a bit!
"I asked, Theresa, I have a serious question for you. What is "homosexual behavior?"
And Anon "answered," sexual activity between two or more members of the same gender
OK, so somebody help me out here. That answer of course is not clear at all. Let me list some things, you tell me if they are "homosexual behavior" or not, OK? (Here I am just referring to males, I'm afraid the lesbian thing is going to be even harder to pin down.) I think we'll agree that a guy putting his penis in the anus or mouth of another man is "homosexual behavior" on both people's part.
How about this: walking down the street holding hands with a guy? Homosexual behavior, or not? How about open-mouth kissing another guy? Does that count? How about flouncing through the grocery store in a fuschia gauze blouse tied at the waist, with teal harem pants and a saffron sash? Homosexual behavior? How about a guy wiggling his butt when he knows another guy is walking behind him? How about smiling and winking at a stranger who seems gay, and starting a conversation with them? How about putting on a wig and eye makeup and lip-synching to Barbra Streisand songs in front of the mirror? What about wearing silk hose and a garter belt under your business suit, and giggling to yourself all day because nobody knows? Is that acceptable, or is that "homosexual behavior?"
How about curling up on the sofa with your best friend, cuddling and eating popcorn and stroking one another's half-naked bodies while you watch old musicals on TV? Homosexual behavior? (It doesn't seem to be, by Anon's definition.)
Or do you only mean behaviors that result in ejaculation of semen into the mouth or anus of another person of the same sex? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't really seem like that's the issue.
JimK"
Obviously, the term can have different meanings. I think if you were talking about the textbook that Theresa quoted, from the context it was written, I think it was just talking about sexual behavior. You could also mean homosexual behavior as in behavior that those engage in homosexual activity also commonly engage in. If you want us to say something so you can get to a punchline, why don't you just tell us what you want us to say.
"Theresa,
Thank you for providing us with this information. It is good to hear from rational - if different- viewpoints and certainly to be able to read what is in other texts and what other kids are learning."
Theresa's magnanimity truly is remarkable considering that the last time she shared something here, a couple of you were ranting at her and calling her a liar. Quite the saint, I'd asy.
... so you can get to a punchline...
I already delivered the punchline. I don't think this is really about ejaculation into orifices. And neither do you, apparently, judging from your answer.
JimK
Anonymous said...
"Theresa's magnanimity truly is remarkable considering that the last time she shared something here, a couple of you were ranting at her and calling her a liar. Quite the saint, I'd asy."
Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue.
A few points off the top:
1) I wasn't suggesting that Theresa should sit down with her ten or twelve year old and talk about sex, though I wouldn't have a problem with that in general.It depends on the child.I was only surprised that she was so concerned to get that book out of sight. I think many of us have had the experience that when we try very hard to hide something we end up making it far more tempting. Somehow those books get found.
2) Anon defines homosexual activity as being between two or more members of the same gender. Putting aside Jim's comments, what is with the "or more"? Is heterosexual behavior that which occurs between a man and two or more women, and vice versa? This "or more" addition smacks of the nonsense being promulgated by Stanley Kurtz these days, that same sex marriage will somehow lead to polyamory.
3)The Catholics might want to believe the numbers for gays and lesbians total no more than 1%. Firstly, if they did, I don't think there would be any discussion here. You need a critical mass, and I don't believe 1% cuts it. I also don't believe the 10% number that was prevalent decades ago. But it all depends on your definition, and we've not resolved that at any level of society.
Are you gay if you've ever had any kind of sexual contact with a member of the same sex? Then the numbers are probably 20% or more, since kids experiment all the time. What qualifies as sexual contact, as Jim described? Is a single experience enough to make you gay forever? How about fantasies? Persistent fantasies can certainly make you a homophobe or a professional anti-gay preacher or politician.
As long as we can't agree on a definition, we're going to be at each other's throats.
4) STIs -- there is a great deal of misinformation in this text. It begs the point -- if you use a condom improperly, you're at risk. Period. That holds for gays and straights, vaginal, anal or oral penetration. The point of the video is to make it much less likely for that to happen.
HPV is not a sexually transmitted disease; most humans have had it by the time they reach puberty. And the new vaccine will prevent the complications. And the only persons at risk will be Christian fundamentalists who refuse their children permission to obtain it, because they don't trust their kids. I wonder why?
Syphilis rarely causes sores anywhere but the penis.
You might get some kids to stop just short of vaginal intercourse, but you're not going to prevent sex. Get past that. It has never happened, and it never will. Abstinence class won't succeed, fire and brimstone won't succeed, STDs won't succeed. And, of course, all this abstinence empahsis has done has moved penetration from the vagina to the mouth and anus, Dr. Ruth's favorite orifice.
As for the question about all sexual desire being innate, such as desire for animals and chains (do those go together, outside an abbatoir?): I have no idea. Speaking from a biological and evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that one's sexual identity and sexual orientation would be innate (by which I include the immediate post-natal period, at least in other animals). Beyond that, how those desires manifest in the society in question will probably be a complex mix of culture and biology. Humans have become very adept at all types of sexual behavior. We can only speculate as to the reasons and the mechanisms. Bonobos are pretty good at it as well. So since it really hasn't been studied, I can't answer that. All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex, and that was picked up by psychiatry and psychoanalysis. But they only had their bias, and very little data. Until the extremists are removed from goivernment I don't expect there will be any money to fund any research on sexual behavior. Just look at the extremist attacks on Kinsey over the past few years. Those people are afraid of the research, because they fear the answers.
"I already delivered the punchline. I don't think this is really about ejaculation into orifices. And neither do you, apparently, judging from your answer."
Any idea what it is really about?
"Of course anyone can, with a little friction and a little imagination, have "sex" with anyone or with any of various inanimate objects or, even, animals."
So, Jim, you concede that anyone can have "sex" with any partner they choose?
What you can calling "gay" is simply someone who prefers to do it with someone of the opposite gender, then. Pleasure is not the issue because, obviously, for a guy to do this, it would be required to get in the proper frame of mind.
Gender preference is a moral choice and an aesthetic choice. Biology determines sex drive. It doesn't determine preference of the circumstances.
So bizarre that we would even think to protect people from discrimination based on what they prefer. Or that we would seek to tell kids, do whatever impulse strikes you. Kids should be taught how to have a happy and healthy life.
"Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue."
I thought Theresa's kids were in Catholic school. Are you saying the PTA kicked her out?
"Anon, part of what I said is that people can have "sex" with ... nonoptimal partners. We have recently had a mayor in Spokane Washington, and I think a governor somewhere, maybe New Jersey, who, after years of marriage, were more or less outed practicing homosexuality."
They were outed abusing their offices. It's not uncommon for married men to become restless. For some of them, gay sex has an attraction because there are some ways in which it's easier to engage in.
"I'm not sure a guy would throw away a marriage and a career on something that was just a preference."
Oh brother.
"I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands, but everybody seems to agree that we have a tendency one way or the other, at least us guys."
So then, it's not an orientation but a preference.
"Now, I don't find it impossible that some guys like both men and women, and just choose what's handy or what society approves of, though science has not found this to be a common experience."
Science has not come to any conclusion here.
"As you say, it's "logical," but it doesn't happen very often. It sounds like you might feel that way, I never did."
This is the whole point, Jim. Any research in this area is never really valid. It's based on feelings. Only the subject knows if they're telling the truth. You guys rely on this truth to attack the Spitzer study but ignore it if any findings go your way. We need to tell kids the truth about this stuff. The truth is we don't know what causes people to feel the way they do.
Anonymous said...
"I thought Theresa's kids were in Catholic school. Are you saying the PTA kicked her out?"
hmmm the word misconstrual comes to mind for this anon
"Anon defines homosexual activity as being between two or more members of the same gender. Putting aside Jim's comments, what is with the "or more"? Is heterosexual behavior that which occurs between a man and two or more women, and vice versa? This "or more" addition smacks of the nonsense being promulgated by Stanley Kurtz these days, that same sex marriage will somehow lead to polyamory."
I didn't mean to imply that, Dana, but I do think there is a legitimate point that multiple partners is much more common, practically ubiquitous, among gay men.
"The Catholics might want to believe the numbers for gays and lesbians total no more than 1%. Firstly, if they did, I don't think there would be any discussion here. You need a critical mass, and I don't believe 1% cuts it. I also don't believe the 10% number that was prevalent decades ago. But it all depends on your definition, and we've not resolved that at any level of society."
You're right. Indeed, if you define it as someone with innate attraction to the opposite gender, I think that would 0% of the population.
"Are you gay if you've ever had any kind of sexual contact with a member of the same sex? Then the numbers are probably 20% or more, since kids experiment all the time. What qualifies as sexual contact, as Jim described? Is a single experience enough to make you gay forever? How about fantasies? Persistent fantasies can certainly make you a homophobe or a professional anti-gay preacher or politician."
Fascinating.
"As long as we can't agree on a definition, we're going to be at each other's throats."
I think this whole throat thing is in your imagination.
"STIs -- there is a great deal of misinformation in this text. It begs the point -- if you use a condom improperly, you're at risk. Period. That holds for gays and straights, vaginal, anal or oral penetration. The point of the video is to make it much less likely for that to happen.
HPV is not a sexually transmitted disease; most humans have had it by the time they reach puberty. And the new vaccine will prevent the complications. And the only persons at risk will be Christian fundamentalists who refuse their children permission to obtain it, because they don't trust their kids. I wonder why?
Syphilis rarely causes sores anywhere but the penis.
You might get some kids to stop just short of vaginal intercourse, but you're not going to prevent sex. Get past that. It has never happened, and it never will. Abstinence class won't succeed, fire and brimstone won't succeed, STDs won't succeed. And, of course, all this abstinence empahsis has done has moved penetration from the vagina to the mouth and anus, Dr. Ruth's favorite orifice."
Guess what else doesn't work? Condom training. The best way to protect kids would be to sustain a society where extra-marital sexual activity is considered wrong. It won't be 100% effective but will, in the long run, save lives.
"As for the question about all sexual desire being innate, such as desire for animals and chains (do those go together, outside an abbatoir?): I have no idea. Speaking from a biological and evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that one's sexual identity and sexual orientation would be innate (by which I include the immediate post-natal period, at least in other animals). Beyond that, how those desires manifest in the society in question will probably be a complex mix of culture and biology. Humans have become very adept at all types of sexual behavior. We can only speculate as to the reasons and the mechanisms. Bonobos are pretty good at it as well. So since it really hasn't been studied, I can't answer that."
Hence, the "no choice" argument is a bunch of propaganda.
"All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex, and that was picked up by psychiatry and psychoanalysis. But they only had their bias, and very little data. Until the extremists are removed from goivernment I don't expect there will be any money to fund any research on sexual behavior. Just look at the extremist attacks on Kinsey over the past few years. Those people are afraid of the research, because they fear the answers."
Right now, people can't do any research that would possibly diverge from the APA or AMA party line or they face censure. There is no academic freedom here. Traditional morality is extremism to you. Maybe you're the extremist.
"hmmm the word misconstrual comes to mind for this anon"
maybe it was bad grammar on your part-
what were you trying to say earlier?
"Right now, people can't do any research that would possibly diverge from the APA or AMA party line or they face censure. There is no academic freedom here."
Proof of this anonymous or just a blanket statement??????????
"maybe it was bad grammar on your part-"
This anon sidestepping the issue of course.
"Proof of this anonymous or just a blanket statement??????????"
You think I'm wrong?
"This anon sidestepping the issue of course."
Sidestepping what? I thought that's what you said. If you didn't mean that, I'm fine with that too. Just say what you mean.
"Tilden PTSA members and MCCPTA members would have more to say that ejecting her to sainthood over that directory issue."
Can anyone translate this for me?
"Can anyone translate this for me?"
Don't speak, imbecile, man.
Surfer Rameses
THANK YOU, THERESA, FOR SHARING THE EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOK FROM AVE MARIA PRESS. THE EXCERPTS APPEAR TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS EXPRESSED TO ME A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO BY THE ARCHDIOCESES’S REPRESENTATION ON THE OLD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
I DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS, WHICH FOLLOW WHAT THERESA PROVIDED:
Some excerpts from the chapter on Homosexuality (thirteen):
They start by introducing Joe, a homosexual who has AIDS and stop sexual activity.
"Joe pointed out what the medical and behavioral sciences acknowledge : we don't fully understand what cuases a person to be sexually attracted to somone of the same sex. Genetic disposion, homones, family upbringing, peer experiences, and a person's sexual history are among the factors that may influence sexual orientation. How much influences any of these factor exerts may vary from person to person."
GENETIC DISPOSITION AND HORMONES IN THE WOMB DO APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AND PROBABLY EXCLUSIVE (CERTAINLY IN MOST CASES), FACTORS IN DETERMINING SEXUAL ORIENTATION. FAMILY UPBRINGING, PEER EXPERIENCES, AND A PERSON’S SEXUAL HISTORY MAY WELL EXPLAIN SOME SEXUAL BEHAVIORS, BUT THE EXPERTS WITH WHOM I HAVE CONSULTED HAVE PRETTY MUCH REJECTED THESE LAST THREE FACTORS AS CAUSES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
WHETHER CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (EITHER SAME SEX OR OPPOSITE SEX) IMPACTS SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS AN INTERESTING SUBJECT. DR. WILLIAM HOLMES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SCHOOL, A PROMINENT RESEARCHER IN THE AREA, HAS DONE DETAILED STUDIES, AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT, AS A GENERAL MATTER, SEXUAL ABUSE IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SAME SEX ORIENTATION. HAVE ANY REPUTABLE RESEARCHERS DONE ANY SYSTEMATIC STUDIES OF THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF MALES WHO WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED BY PRIESTS? ARE A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF VICTIMS NOW SELF-IDENTIFIED HOMOSEXUALS? THE ANSWER TO SUCH A QUESTION WOULD NOT DEFINITIVELY ANSWER THE OVERALL QUESTION OF THE IMPACT OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, BUT IT WOULD OPEN FURTHER AVENUES OF STUDY.
IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION OF THE ETIOLOGY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE REVISED CURRICULUM THAT WAS TO BE PILOTED LAST SPRING.
....
"Who is Homosexual?
Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual ?"
THAT IS WHY THE REVISED CURRICULUM MADE IT CLEAR THAT “FLEETING [SAME SEX] ATTRACTION OR CONTACT DOES NOT PROVE LONG-TERM SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”
...
example of someone they know..
"Very few people are homosexual. You may have heard the statistic that "one out of ten people is gay or lesbian." That estimate turns out to be much too high and based on faulty research. Three recent sudies have found a much lower figure.
They cite 3 studies, 1 ) a Minnesota study that said 26% of 12-year olds said they were uncertain of their sexual orientation and then at 18, only 5% were unsure and 98% of those that said they were sure said they were heterosexual..2) the Guttmacher study and another study in France, both of which put the number at 1%.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE PRECISE PERCENTAGE. THE REVISED CURRICULUM DID NOT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. BUT WHETHER THE NUMBER IS 1% OR 10% IS NOT TERRIBLY RELEVANT. THE ISSUE IS NOT HOW RARE HOMOSEXUALITY IS (WE ALL AGREE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE HETEROSEXUAL), BUT WHAT WE TEACH ABOUT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAPPEN TO BE HETEROSEXUAL.
"You may know people who tease, pick on, or are even violent to those they suspect to be homosexual. these behaviors are clearly wrong because they are not loving, respectful, or just.
May people, however, confuse respect with approval. They think that if you respect people who are gay or lesbian, you must also approve of their sexual lifestyle. This is a mistaken belief. Ethics requires us to respect people, not their actions. "
Okay, so this make the point that the Catholic faith holds that homosexual behavior is wrong, which clearly isn't going to fly in a public school. But I don't think you can make the statement that homosexual sex is just fine and dandy either, without starting to tread moral ground that you shouldn't be touching. Like the famous "baptist church is biblically misguided" impression that the judge believed the last curriculum implied.
AS FOR THERESA’S LAST STATEMENT THAT JUDGE WILLIAMS BELIEVED THAT THE CURRICULUM IMPLIED THAT THE “BAPTIST CHURCH IS BIBICALLY MISGUIDED,” IN FACT THE CURRICULUM DID NO SUCH THING AND THE ONLY STATEMENT REGARDING RELIGION WAS THAT “DIFFERENT RELIGIONS TAKE DIFFERENT STANDS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIORS AND THERE ARE EVEN DIFFERENT VIEWS AMONG PEOPLE OF THE SAME RELIGION.” PERHAPS JUDGE WILLIAMS BELIEVED THAT A FEW STATEMENTS IN SOME BACKGROUND TEACHER RESOURCES MIGHT HAVE BLED INTO THE CURRICULUM; I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE TEACHERS THAN THAT.
ANYWAY, THE STICKING POINT IN HIS DECISION WAS NOT THE “RELIGION” PART – MEMBERS OF THE OLD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WERE PREPARING TO RECOMMEND THAT THOSE TEACHER RESOURCES BE REMOVED WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS TERMINATED. THE STICKING POINT WAS THE ABSURD PROPOSITION THAT IF THE CURRICULUM WAS TO TEACH THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDICAL COMMUNITY HAS CONCLUDED THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER AND THAT MOST EXPERTS DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A CHOICE, THEN MCPS WAS BOUND BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO PRESENT THE “OTHER VIEW” THAT HOMOSEXUALTY IS A MENTAL DISORDER AND CAN BE “REPAIRED.”
BUT TO ADDRESS THERESA’S PRINCIPAL POINT HERE – THAT SHE DOESN’T “THINK YOU CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS JUST FINE AND DANDY EITHER, WITHOUT STARTING TO TREAD MORAL GROUND THAT YOU SHOULDN’T BE TOUCHING” - I WOULD NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
NOTHING IN THE REVISED CURRICULUM SAID THAT “HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS JUST FINE AND DANDY.” INDEED, THE REVISED CURRICULUM DID NOT DISCUSS HOMOSEXUAL SEX AT ALL. WHAT THE CURRICULUM SAID IS THAT THE “ALL MAJOR PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AFFIRM THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER,” AND THAT THERE ARE FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY HEADED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES. THOSE ARE SIMPLY FACTS.
IF STUDENTS DEDUCE FROM THOSE FACTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING “WRONG” WITH BEING GAY, FINE.
IF PARENTS WANT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS’ POSITION AFFIRMING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER IS INCORRECT, THEY ARE FREE TO DO, JUST AS PARENTS IN DOVER, PA, ARE FREE TO TELL THEIR CHILDREN THAT DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS INCORRECT.
IF PARENTS WANT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT THAT IT HOMOSEXULITY IS NOT A MENTAL DISORDER, IT IS “WRONG” OR “SINFUL” TO BE GAY OR TO EVER ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX (EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF A PERMANENT, COMMITTED, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP), THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS.
THERESA’S USE OF THE PHRASE “FINE AND DANDY” SADLY TRIVIALIZES THE LIVES OF PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY. SHE IS CERTAINLY FREE TO ADHERE TO THE TEACHING OF HER RELIGION THAT GOD CALLS ON HOMOSEXUALS TO BE LIFE-LONG CELIBATES. BUT I FIND IT HURTFUL FOR HER TO TREAT SO CAVALIERLY THE HAPPINESS OF THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY. LIFE-LONG CELIBACY IS A HARD ROW TO HOE, AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS LEARNED. I CAN UNDERSTAND IT FOR THOSE DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS WHO CHOOSE TO DEVOTE THEIR LIVES ENTIRELY TO OTHERS AND TO GOD, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL LIVES. BUT TO IMPOSE LIFE-LONG CELIBACY ON THOSE WHO HAVE NOT MADE SUCH A CHOICE IS, I BELIEVE, MISGUIDED AND HARSH. OF COURSE, IF ONE BELIEVES THAT THE ONLY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR HAVING SEX IS PROCREATION, THEN THAT OPENS UP A WHOLLY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.
David
Okay the Tilden PTA did not eject me. My kids don't go to Tilden. I had transferred the two younger ones from a Catholic school to NCC for one year and than transferred them back. However, I was quite active on the list serve for NCC on this issue and the PTA there (funny how PTAs seem to be dominated by very liberal folks) I believe were quite relieved when I left.
I think the fact that the PTAs were so upset by CRCs letters and not at all upset by the other lady who mailed BCCs letters is that ours were effective.
Not to get sidetracked, but a few quick points :
1 - we didn't take the directories, parents with kids in the schools in every case gave them to us. We had several offers at every school. The parents knew we were going to use them to mail the school, and gave them to us anyway. Kind of shows you that more than just a few loons were not happy with this curriculum.
2 - we were not soliticing, we were providing information directly related to a school curriculum issue. A few of the directories had statements in the front with limitations on usage. We ran those by the attorney before using those directories. So, what we did was not unethical, immoral or illegal. You might say we were providing a public service.
3 - Most of what we mailed WAS the curriculum. The pilot schools test grades got letters that contained a 3 page doubled sided printout of the curriculum - VERBATIM. No modifications - not the whole curriculum clearly, but not taken out of context either. Section references provided. One cover letter - the myths and facts section or a letter from Dr. Ruth (Jacobs :-) on the health risks that were being ignored. The cover letter was one side of one page, the health letter was one side of one page - we had the back in Spanish. Total of one page both sides compared to 3 pages both sides of curriculum. Actually the myths and facts came out of the curriculum too.... so again, most of what we mailed was the curriculum.
4 - I believe the school system was trying to slip this through without the parents really understanding what their kids were going to be taught - TO WIT :
4a. the pilot school did not provide adequate notification of the parent meeting. In one pilot school case the notes about the parent meeting went home the day of the meeting.
4b. At the parent meetings - the 30 or so pages of curriculum were handed out, the parents were given 10 minutes to read it - and then they asked for questions and COLLECTED them again.
4c. No real overview was presented about what the kids were going to be taught !
4d. The controversial teacher resources, which are supposed to be available for parents to review, were not available at the parent meetings either.
What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective. Susan's letters were long, rambling and I think the only folks that bothered to read the whole letter were the liberal folks who were mad about getting them, which is why the BOE saw the return rates that they did - I doubt most parents even started to read it - the type was small, margins small, 4 pages front and back, etc.
We didn't make that mistake. Concise and to the point. Backed up with actual curriculum included.
A public service for our schools :-).
David said
"THERESA’S USE OF THE PHRASE “FINE AND DANDY” SADLY TRIVIALIZES THE LIVES OF PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY"
Well that would be the CRC way...would it not?
Is this the same Theresa who is secretary of CRC?
Theresa said:
" I was quite active on the list serve for NCC on this issue and the PTA there (funny how PTAs seem to be dominated by very liberal folks) I believe were quite relieved when I left. "
Oh those liberals in PTAs who accept people being gay.....is that what you mean?
theresa said:
"I think the fact that the PTAs were so upset by CRCs letters and not at all upset by the other lady who mailed BCCs letters is that ours were effective.
Not to get sidetracked, but a few quick points :
1 - we didn't take the directories, parents with kids in the schools in every case gave them to us. We had several offers at every school. The parents knew we were going to use them to mail the school, and gave them to us anyway. Kind of shows you that more than just a few loons were not happy with this curriculum.
2 - we were not soliticing, we were providing information directly related to a school curriculum issue. A few of the directories had statements in the front with limitations on usage. We ran those by the attorney before using those directories. So, what we did was not unethical, immoral or illegal. You might say we were providing a public service.
3 - Most of what we mailed WAS the curriculum. The pilot schools test grades got letters that contained a 3 page doubled sided printout of the curriculum - VERBATIM. No modifications - not the whole curriculum clearly, but not taken out of context either. Section references provided. One cover letter - the myths and facts section or a letter from Dr. Ruth (Jacobs :-) on the health risks that were being ignored. The cover letter was one side of one page, the health letter was one side of one page - we had the back in Spanish. Total of one page both sides compared to 3 pages both sides of curriculum. Actually the myths and facts came out of the curriculum too.... so again, most of what we mailed was the curriculum.
4 - I believe the school system was trying to slip this through without the parents really understanding what their kids were going to be taught - TO WIT :
4a. the pilot school did not provide adequate notification of the parent meeting. In one pilot school case the notes about the parent meeting went home the day of the meeting.
4b. At the parent meetings - the 30 or so pages of curriculum were handed out, the parents were given 10 minutes to read it - and then they asked for questions and COLLECTED them again.
4c. No real overview was presented about what the kids were going to be taught !
4d. The controversial teacher resources, which are supposed to be available for parents to review, were not available at the parent meetings either.
What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective. Susan's letters were long, rambling and I think the only folks that bothered to read the whole letter were the liberal folks who were mad about getting them, which is why the BOE saw the return rates that they did - I doubt most parents even started to read it - the type was small, margins small, 4 pages front and back, etc.
We didn't make that mistake. Concise and to the point. Backed up with actual curriculum included.
A public service for our schools :-)."
Liar liar pants on fire. People came out in droves to refute those letters and you know it. Tilden PTSA and MCCPTA took CRC to task.
Parents came out and said in press and elsewhere that CRC lied in the letters. You forget TTF, etc. have copies of those letters.
Nice try Theresa..are you revising history?
Theresa said:
"What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective."
and Theresa said:
"Concise and to the point. Backed up with actual curriculum included. "
____________________________
Tilden's then PTSA President had this to say about the CRC letter:
To: [Tilden listserve]
From: [Susan Wyderco]
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:26:59 -0000
Subject: [tilden] Changes to health curriculum
I and other members of the Tilden community have received a letter addressed to "Parents of [my child's name]" from a group calling itself "Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum." This letter purports to warn parents of an impending change to the health curriculum that, the letter states, "defends and advocates sexual variations."
Coincidentally, just last Friday I had the opportunity to examine the two hour health curriculum information that the letter claims to describe. I participated in a focus group with two school professionals, two eighth graders, and another parent. We reviewed carefully the exact information that will be presented to some eighth graders in a pilot program that will be offered later this school year. (Participation in the pilot is entirely voluntary.)
In my opinion, the letter we have received badly mis-states the information that is included in the new component of the curriculum. The new curriculum defines words (such as homosexuality) that our children encounter on a daily basis. It provides factual information in an appropriate and non-sensational manner. It does not "defend and advocate sexual variations." The curriculum, and the total health curriculum in general, strongly advocates abstinence from sexual relations.
I urge you not to come to any conclusions about the new component of the health curriculum on the basis of this letter (or, indeed, merely upon my description of it.) Your children deserve for you to first examine the curriculum before deciding whether it is appropriate or not.
Should you decide that the new curriculum contains information that is inappropriate for your child, the school system makes it easy for you to have your child "opt-out" of participating. That has been the case in the past with portions of the health curriculum which deal with issues touching upon human sexuality; it is true with this portion of the curriculum as well.
Susan Wyderko
PTSA President
and now Tilden PTSA Resolution:
Final Resolution
Adopted May 10, 2005
WHEREAS the Tilden Middle School Parent Teacher Student Association compiles and publishes annually a student directory that includes potentially sensitive information such as the name, street address and telephone numbers of all students whose parents have agreed to have such information included, and
WHEREAS by common knowledge and accepted practice this directory is intended exclusively for the private use of the Tilden community to facilitate communication within the Tilden community, and is not intended to be used for any other purpose, and
WHEREAS an organization calling itself the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (CRC) has conceded that it surreptitiously obtained a copy of the student directory and used the information in it to develop a mailing list for a purpose inconsistent with the intended or appropriate use of the directory, and
WHEREAS the President of the Tilden Middle School PTSA has formally asked the CRC to describe how it obtained the list and with whom they have shared it or to whom they may have sold it, and the CRC has declined to reply,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Tilden Middle School PTSA objects in the strongest terms to the misuse of the directory by the CRC, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PTSA demands that the CRC respond promptly and completely to the questions raised by its President about the source and intended use of the directory information, specifically identifying any instances in which this information may have already been sold or otherwise made available to another individual or entity, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PTSA demands the CRC agree in writing to cease using the information obtained from the directory, and to return to the PTSA all copies of the directory information now in the possession of CRC, in whatever form the information may exist, or certify in writing that this information has been destroyed.
___________
Now Theresa... what say you?
I didn't see any facts here.
A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional. Who is revising history ?
Did you attend the parent sex ed meetings at the pilots ? Did you follow when the notices about the sex ed meetings went out at the pilot schools by checking with parents at each pilot school with kids in those grades (not two weeks notice, that was for sure). Did you sit in on the parent sex ed presentations about the curriculum given by the pilot schools ?
I did. Did you ?
I know what the schools did (or didn't do), because I was there, I followed it, and I witnessed it. Did you ?
A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional...
Twwweeeeet! Out of bounds.
The judge did not "reject the curriculum" or say it was unconstitutional. He issued a ten-day restraining order after two days of reviewing the complainants materials, and a half day after receiving (can't tell if he looked at them) the school district's materials. The restraining order just means there may be grounds for a suit, and it stopped the implementation for a short time -- 10 days -- so parties could negotiate. If the complainants can't be satisfied then they can proceed with the suit. That's all it was, as you well know. And a settlement was negotiated.
This would've been thrown out of court in a heartbeat if the two sides had been able to prepare and argue their cases, that is, if it had gone to a real lawsuit.
JimK
Only the pilot grades got the curriculum. So at Tilden, the 8th grade only. The 6 and 7th grade just got letters and the Myths and Facts section of the curriculum.
What I said was accurate, the pilot grades got the curriculum. So if Susan at Tilden didn't get a full curriculum hand out, that was because her child was not in the 8th grade. Obviously as PTA president she didn't check very closely or she would have realized that the 8th grade parents got the curriculum as well - she didn't have to tell them to go look at it, it was included.
As for Susan's opinion of the curriculum "It does not "defend and advocate sexual variations"" - well the judge disagreed with her, didn't he ?
Theresa, I'm concerned. Will you please click on THIS LINK and see if the letter that's reproduced there seems familiar to you at all? That's what the Tilden parents got -- it's so full of misrepresentations I can't believe you still defend it.
JimK
Yes - that is it.
I don't think it is full of misrepresentations.
I read your comments on it, and the only one I would agree with is we should have added "about". Didn't really catch that before - thought it was obvious (the school clearly isn't going to have sexual experimentation in classrooms - well maybe in Massachusetts)...
As far as the resource section, I would refer you to this post here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/2005/05/teacher-resources-myth-or-fact.html
and the included resources did say these things, this was one of the main reasons the curriculum was thrown out...
And if you are going to add a discussion on homosexuality, you need to include the unique health risks of homosexuality, so the health risks section must be updates....
Theses resources were rejected :
[1] The resources rejected were: U.S. Centers for Disease Control-Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men, " In 2000, 59% of reported HIV infections among adolescent males aged 13-19...were attributed to male to male sexual contact", Am. Psychiatric Assn. Pedophilia Fact Sheet, and Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, Dr. T.J. Dailey.
[2] Six fact sheets from Centers for Disease Control-HIV Diagnoses Climbing Among Gay and Bisexual Men; New CDC Studies Shed Light on Factors Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual; Young People at Risk; HIV/AIDS Among America's Youth; A Glance at the HIV Epidemic; U.S. Syphilis Rate Climbs for Second Consecutive Year; Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men
See this link for more :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/2005/02/approved-part-4-of-4.html#_ftn2
I can't find the back up link on the CRC website for the transgenderism quote, but there is one. It points to I think an AMA study. I could keep looking, but I thought I would respond to Dana's oral sex issue.
This is rehashing old stuff and I don't think it is accomplishing anything...
Jim -
First, I didn't mean to be curt on my closing of rehashing old stuff". I just don't think we are going to agree, ever, and it's pretty irrelevant now anyway, so...
Here's what "Sex, Love and You" has to say about oral sex :
"There's a lot of talk these days about oral sex.
Unfortunately, some teens view this sexual practice as an acceptable way to avoid pregnancy. Says Chimea, an 18¬year-old: "Your hear so much from adults about abstaining and staying a virgin that oral sex seems like the perfect sub¬stitute for intercourse."
Oral sex isn't completely new behavior for young peo¬ple, but it appears from at least some indicators to be on the rise. A study in the 1980s found that roughly one in five of the 13- to 18-year-olds surveyed said they had oral sex. By 2002, according to a survey conducted by Seventeen mag¬azine and the Kaiser Family Foundation, 55% of teens reported having oral sex, compared to 40% who said they had sexual intercourse.
Oprah Winfrey recently devoted an entire show to the apparent increase of oral sex among 13- and 14-year-old.s (and even among some pre-teens). According to the testi¬mony on the program, some boys are demanding oral sex from their girlfriends the way they used to expect a good¬night kiss. Some girls said they had performed oral sex on many boys. Other stories told of "oral sex parties" and oral sex going on at school dances and even in the hallways and classrooms during a school day.
Along with these reported trends, there have also been accounts of girls coming to counselors and therapists because they are emotional wrecks after repeatedly engag¬ing in oral sex with boys.
Whether the actual frequency of oral sex is as prevalent as reported, here are some things to keep in mind about this behavior:
1. Oral sex is definitely a sexual act. As 17-year-old Sam points out, "Oral sex counts as sex. That's why they call it oral sex. If you have oral sex, you're no longer a
virgin."
2. Oral sex is usually something boys ask girls to perform
on them.
3. No boy who truly cares about or respects a girl would ever ask her to have oral sex. Oprah Winfrey asked the boys whether they would take girls who were giving oral sex to the prom or introduce them to their mother, and they all responded "No."
4. You can get sexually transmitted diseases from oral sex (including HIV, herpes, chlamydia, and human papillo¬mavirus) whether the girl performs it on the guy or the guy performs it on the girl. Doctors today report seeing more and more teens with oral herpes, for example.
5. If you have oral sex, especially if you are a girl, you are in danger of experiencing the same emotional hurts that befall teens who have sexual intercourse. If you are a boy and are getting girls to have oral sex with you (even if they seem willing), you might not experience the same kinds of emotional hurts, but you are doing something morally wrong by engaging in an impure act and by disrespecting and using a girl in this way.
If you are having oral sex-and we say this not to make you feel bad but because you may not realize this-you are not practicing chastity, which requires purity in all your actions and thoughts. You're not respecting your worth and dignity as a person."
Theresa said:
"A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional..."
and Theresa said:
"Theses resources were rejected :"
Theresa are you going to tell us all you do not know what the difference is between teacher resources and curriculum?
Nice try...but big difference and then again you know that.
Theresa,
I don't know what "oral sex issues" you believe I have. I think I said that oral sex appears to be on the increase, in association with the emphasis on vaginal abstinence. Personally, I think that's a pretty good trade-off, but my point was that kids are going to have sex because they are sexual human beings, and your utopia (and Anon's) never has existed nor will it ever exist. Your willful rejection of that simple historical fact will condemn these kids to unnecessary misery. Similar to the fundamentalists' desire to ban the HPV vaccine. I believe such people should be morally and legally culpable for the obvious expected consequences, just as someone who is HIV+ and doesn't tell his partner, or L. Paul Bremer for over 2100 US military deaths in Iraq because he did not anticipate an insurgency, as he admnitted yesterday. I guess he deserves a medal for his blindness as well. But, I digress. You guys are supposed to be the responsibility crowd, but I see no one ever taking any responsibility for themsleves, only for others.
You're right about rehashing the debate about the CRC and its misuse of school materials - it's futile to review it, it's there for people to decide for themselves, which I believe they already have. As is also true for the court decision. If you consider that a great victory, enjoy it. It's pretty pathetic as those things go, and I expect the outcome will be very different in the next go-round.
Do you think oral sex is an "impure act"?
And please keep looking for that transgender quote you mentioned.
Thank you.
Theresa said:
"This is rehashing old stuff and I don't think it is accomplishing anything..."
No it does not when you lie. Revising history seems to be your game for today.
Theresa also said:
"Did you attend the parent sex ed meetings at the pilots ? Did you follow when the notices about the sex ed meetings went out at the pilot schools by checking with parents at each pilot school with kids in those grades (not two weeks notice, that was for sure). Did you sit in on the parent sex ed presentations about the curriculum given by the pilot schools ?
I did. Did you ?
I know what the schools did (or didn't do), because I was there, I followed it, and I witnessed it. Did you ?"
Well actually yes and I know you are not telling the truth.
Theresa said:
"As for Susan's opinion of the curriculum "It does not "defend and advocate sexual variations"" - well the judge disagreed with her, didn't he ?"
Did he...?
Point us to exactly where the judge said the above you are quoted as saying about advocating for sexual variations.
Theresa said:
"I read your comments on it, and the only one I would agree with is we should have added "about". Didn't really catch that before - thought it was obvious (the school clearly isn't going to have sexual experimentation in classrooms - well maybe in Massachusetts)..."
__________________________
Yes Theresa you are on record as saying to NCC about sex ed issue last spring and seemingly to imply MCPS would be doing same as in Mass.
_____________________
Theresa wrote to her school community last March:
Is everyone okay with this?
Because here is a little snapsnot of what's next and where this ends up:
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist1.htm
Theresa wrote:
"I can't find the back up link on the CRC website for the transgenderism quote, but there is one. It points to I think an AMA study"
This one Theresa?????????
Here is the issue of Ben Patton's testimony at BOE courtesy of TTF website.
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/08/more-crc-ugliness-at-school-board.html
Both curricula have the same thing. It is a section that says:
For Teacher Reference Only (The information in the shaded area is not to be shared with students.)...Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity or expression differs from conventional expectations for their physical sex. This term includes transsexual and transvestite.(Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Oct. 1993), pp. 631-634)
You are correct - I did send that to NCC net.
Curious, Anonymous, do you think what they did in Mass. is okay ?
Because when you start blurring the lines, taking abstinence till marriage out of the sex ed classes and teaching please use condoms when you have sex instead, the lines aren't clear anymore.
And if you keep moving that sex education level down and down and down to younger and younger kids ... when do you stop ?
NCC mentions condoms in the class they wanted my TEN YEAR OLD to take.
Should the age be EIGHT year olds next year ... heck why stop there ?
Let's teach the three year old about anal sex and condoms...start in the preschools...
Where's the line guys ?
Theresa said:
"Where's the line guys ?"
The line with the words "opt out" if you do not want your child in sex ed as it relates to sex ed in MCPS.
Very easy...
But when you yourself blur the lines and play fast and loose with what you and CRC purport to be in curriculum..well that is a whole other issue.
Because when you start blurring the lines, taking abstinence till marriage out of the sex ed classes and teaching please use condoms when you have sex instead, the lines aren't clear anymore.
****************
Are you now going to tell us abstinence was not discussed in curriculum and was taken out? How about that condom video? How many times was abstinence said in that?
Blurring those lines again Theresa????
I really hate to have to rehash this stuff, but for the benefit of anyone who may be new to the discussions in Montgomery County, the CRC allegations that MCPS and the Citizens Advisory Committee disregarded CDC materials on sexually transmitted infections (STIs)is a lie. Here are the facts:
All CDC materials on STIs are available to health teachers, and the separate unit on STIs discusses the subject at great length. What occurred before the Citizens Advisory Committee -- which was dealing at that time with the unit on Family Life and Human Sexuality (not the separate unit on STIs) -- was that one member of the Committee (Ms. Brown) offered as teacher resources for that unit CDC materials that dealt only with same-sex STI transmission. We asked the MCPS staff whether these materials were already available in the STI unit and we were assured that they were. Ms. Brown gave no explanation as to why she was offering those resources again for the FLHS unit, when she was not also offering the resources dealing with opposite sex transmission of STIs. The overwhelming majority of the Committee rejected Ms. Brown's suggestion because it was redundant and, more to the point, was made purely to stigmatize homosexuals. The proposed revised FLHS unit did not discuss sexual activity, so placement of those resources in that unit really made no sense. Obviously, such resources are needed for the health curriculum, and that is why they are in the STI unit.
I am perfectly happy to discuss these issues in a respectful manner. Lies and misrepresentations, however, are unacceptable in fair discourse. If we all try to be as honest as we can, then we may learn something from each other. But if people lie, then it makes if very hard for anyone to learn from anyone else.
"SHE IS CERTAINLY FREE TO ADHERE TO THE TEACHING OF HER RELIGION THAT GOD CALLS ON HOMOSEXUALS TO BE LIFE-LONG CELIBATES. BUT I FIND IT HURTFUL FOR HER TO TREAT SO CAVALIERLY THE HAPPINESS OF THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO HAPPEN TO BE GAY. LIFE-LONG CELIBACY IS A HARD ROW TO HOE"
David
As Jim and I have reasoned, no one is being asked to be celibate. All gays are perfectly capable of functioning as heterosexuals just as there are many examples of heterosexuals performing homosexual activity when by circumstances it becomes the only avenue. Behavior is a choice.
"GENETIC DISPOSITION AND HORMONES IN THE WOMB DO APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AND PROBABLY EXCLUSIVE"
Let's see the evidence, David.
"What we did was to make it impossible for the school system to slip this by the parents without review. I think the reason that is why the PTA is so angry - our letters were effective.
A public service for our schools :-)."
On behalf of responsible parents of Montgomery County, thanks to CRC. Public schools will be hopeless until the liberal stranglehold on the PTA and NEA is released.
"Liar liar pants on fire."
Has anyone in TTF reached a maturity level above sixth grade?
David -
So an accurate represnentation would be that they (CAC/BOE..) failed to include updated material in teacher resources (in whatever section they are supposed to be in) on the unique risks of homosexual sex while updating the curriculum to discuss homosexuality ? It would seem to me responsible to include new material on the unique dangers of homosexual sex if you are also including new material discussing homosexuality. It would seem to me that the safety of the kids would warrant educating them that men having sex with men AIDS infection rates are much, much higher than heterosexual sex somewhere in the curriculum, and the concern for the kids safety would trump any concern for stigmatizing homosexuals by pointing out those unique infection rates. After all, we wouldn't want the kids trying to experiement using the guidance of the originally approaved language in myths and facts "same sex play among adolescents is normal" without any guidance that this "same sex play" could lead to them catching a disease that might kill them. I believe it is completely irresponsible to introduce a curriculum that discusses homosexuality and not also include somewhere current STI material that talks about MSM AIDs infection rates. The safety of the kids is more important.
Out of curiousity, can you point me to a currently included resource that the teachers had available to them that gave them backup material to refute the "condoms are 99% effective" staetment in the condom video. I stated lots of studies earlier that when you take that 99% over a year rate you are at a 10%=30% failure rate. You have indicated in past that the teachers would tell kids that information - or something similar - after the video. In that case they would have had a backup resource to help them point that out to the kids, right ? Can you point to what study they were given to help with this ?
"A judge rejected the curriculum as unconstitutional...
Twwweeeeet! Out of bounds.
The judge did not "reject the curriculum" or say it was unconstitutional. He issued a ten-day restraining order after two days of reviewing the complainants materials, and a half day after receiving (can't tell if he looked at them) the school district's materials. The restraining order just means there may be grounds for a suit, and it stopped the implementation for a short time -- 10 days -- so parties could negotiate. If the complainants can't be satisfied then they can proceed with the suit. That's all it was, as you well know. And a settlement was negotiated.
This would've been thrown out of court in a heartbeat if the two sides had been able to prepare and argue their cases, that is, if it had gone to a real lawsuit."
Wrong, Jim. It was a restraining order but the language in the judge's opinion made perfectly clear how the case would be resolved. That's why the group of Keystone cops that is the MCPS school board ousted the curriculum.
Dana -
Found it.
http://health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/illnesses.html?article=2870&page=1
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html
Scroll down past the first topic.
...unique risks of homosexual sex...
Theresa ... what is "homosexual sex" supposed to be? Please tell me one thing that gay people so sexually, that straight people don't do? To argue that the school should somehow teach about the "unique risks of homosexual sex" is nonsense.
PB
"Theresa are you going to tell us all you do not know what the difference is between teacher resources and curriculum?"
The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction.
"I am perfectly happy to discuss these issues in a respectful manner. Lies and misrepresentations, however, are unacceptable in fair discourse. If we all try to be as honest as we can, then we may learn something from each other. But if people lie, then it makes if very hard for anyone to learn from anyone else."
A question for only David to answer: who lied and when?
There's a bottom line here:
If the sex-ed curriculum presented monogamous marriage as the ideal model, lives would be saved.
The rejected curriculum made extramarital sexual activity seem acceptable. There are some kids to whom this message would make no difference. There are certain kids who take what they are taught seriously who could be harmed by it if they decide to pursue homosexual activity or promiscuity.
No kids would have been helped by the curriculum proposed and rejected last year.
"All I can say is that western monotheists have always frowned on anything but plain vanilla heterosex"
As far as I know, this is not just limited to the West. Can you tell us about any societies where homosexuality or promiscuity are considered acceptable.
"I have no doubt that people can have sex, even occasionally pleasurable sex, with a wide range of "partners," including their own hands"
So let's get this straight, Jim. You think men can become aroused to perform sex that is unpleasurable?
PB -
Like this :
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
Whoops, let's try that again...
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf
Hopefully the whole link made it..
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers
/Health_Risks.pdf
Need to concatentate....
"An analogy would be the treat for duodenal ulcers when I was in medical school, and the treatment today. Doctors thought they were caused by stress, so they tried to reduce stress. When they were finally able to believe their eyes and the research that they were bacterial infections (it took about twenty years for that to sink in), they began treating the infection and curing the disease. But had they never challenged their assumptions they could not have done so."
Bad analogy, Dana. They were incorrect about the cause of ulcers but it was obviously a disease.
The fact that ulcers were caused by bacteria was actually discovered by scientists in another country. They were able to look beyond the status quo of the US medical establishment. The AMA was wrong just like they are about homosexuality.
"we didn't take the directories, parents with kids in the schools in every case gave them to us. We had several offers at every school. The parents knew we were going to use them to mail the school, and gave them to us anyway."
Unless TTF disputes this, the conversation has ended here. The directories are for the purpose of parent to parent communication. CRC, a group of parents, used them for this purpose.
Theresa, I've seen that link before. He argues about promiscuity, physical health, mental health, life span, and the definition of monogamy, which have nothing to do with sexual orientation. All his data, also, is junk, and I expect Dana will have something to say about that, if she bothers.
Really, I just asked what "homosexual sex" is supposed to be. The fact is, there is nothing special about "homosexual sex." So as far as you wanting to teach about its risks, what do want the schools to say? If there is an epidemic in a subpopulation, how do you deal with it? Do you attack sickle-cell anemia by teaching kids that it's dangerous to be black?
PB
"The fact is, there is nothing special about "homosexual sex.""
Unrestrained as it is by any traditional moral system, male homosexuality is more likely to be promiscuous, random and, by definition, extramarital. It's all part of the attraction for some. It leads to tragic consequences.
Lesbianism is probably not that dangerous. Women do indeed to be less promiscuous and lesbianism is more a rejection of traditional male roles than a sexual preference.
"So as far as you wanting to teach about its risks, what do want the schools to say?"
How about pointing out that anal sex, if not done with an exclusive marital partner is so dangerous that, if engaged in regularly, might be considered suicidal?
"Do you attack sickle-cell anemia by teaching kids that it's dangerous to be black?"
An ugly insult to minority members of our community.
So let's get this straight, Jim. You think men can become aroused to perform sex that is unpleasurable?
Anon, think about those pictures from Abu Ghraib, with prisoners with erections and the Americans pointing at them and making fun of them. Did you think the prisoners were enjoying that?
It seems obvious that, as I said, friction and imagination can make up for a lot in the actual physical situation. Like, how sexy is your hand, really?
JimK
How about pointing out that anal sex, if not done with an exclusive marital partner is so dangerous that, if engaged in regularly, might be considered suicidal?
That's fine, but anal sex is a mostly heterosexual behavior.
PB
"Anon, think about those pictures from Abu Ghraib, with prisoners with erections and the Americans pointing at them and making fun of them. Did you think the prisoners were enjoying that?
It seems obvious that, as I said, friction and imagination can make up for a lot in the actual physical situation. Like, how sexy is your hand, really?"
Abu Ghraib was a clear indication of how wicked our popular culture has become. Those soldiers played video games, surfed porn websites, visited sex chat rooms. The sex ed curriculum should resist and not accomodate that culture.
We agree on the other matter. I don't understand why you don't see the implication for the whole "choice" issue.
"That's fine, but anal sex is a mostly heterosexual behavior."
Not exactly but it's irrelevant. Remember CRC stands against the normalization of extramarital hetrosexual activity as well as homosexual behavior.
"The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction."
Bull-oney!
All the judge "determined" was that a 10 day Temporary Restraining Order was in order.
The FACT is that PFOX and their local stooges settled with MCPS without getting their blessed concept of "gay=sin which should be *cured*" included in the curriculum. This FACT speaks volumes as to their $33,000.00 pro-bono lawyers' certainty of defeat should they have continued to press their shaky case. Both "viewpoint discrimination" and "teach the controversy" arguments have been thrown out of court repeatedly, most recently in the Dover, PA case about Intelligent Design. Get over it.
...the normalization of extramarital hetrosexual activity...
That is an odd change of subject. It seems entirely possible that anal sex mostly occurs between married couples.
PB
"Those soldiers played video games, surfed porn websites, visited sex chat rooms."
And most likely voted for the same ticket you did. Go figure!
"And most likely voted for the same ticket you did. Go figure!"
Hmmm..I wonder who Bill Clinton or the Hollywood culture leeches that create this culture voted for.
I don't understand why you don't see the implication for the whole "choice" issue.
A guy is gay. His friends and his church would hate him if they knew; for all he has been told, God Himself will reject him if he loved someone he was actually attracted to. So he marries a woman -- it happens every day. And when the lights go out, all he has to do is close his eyes and pretend. Fantasizing during sex that you're with somebody else -- happens every day.
JimK
""The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction."
Bull-oney!"
The judge quoted from the "resources" freely to bolster his reasoning. He recognized no distinction.
"That is an odd change of subject. It seems entirely possible that anal sex mostly occurs between married couples."
Don't know if the statistics are available but if its an exclusive marital relationship its perfectly safe.
"A guy is gay. His friends and his church would hate him if they knew; for all he has been told, God Himself will reject him if he loved someone he was actually attracted to. So he marries a woman -- it happens every day. And when the lights go out, all he has to do is close his eyes and pretend. Fantasizing during sex that you're with somebody else -- happens every day."
He's made a correct moral choice. What makes him "gay" in your book? Because he really wants to have sex with guys but has chosen not to? Maybe it just seems more attractive because it is forbidden fruit. Maybe it's just a psychological problem to want to do something that's not good for himself, his family or society.
And if he's performing sexually in his marriage, it's absurd to say he's not enjoying it or denying himself some essential element of life. The victimization you guys seem to hang your hat on is very elusive.
"It was a restraining order but the language in the judge's opinion made perfectly clear how the case would be resolved."
"The judge quoted from the "resources" freely to bolster his reasoning. He recognized no distinction."
Well obviously your opinions differ from those of the lead attorney on the case, the one who decided to settle with MCPS for absolutely nothing other than a seat or two (if CRC ever gets its act together) on the CAC.
Do tell why would they walk away from this *slam dunk* of a case...
Maybe they were helping out in Dover...
"Do tell why would they walk away from this *slam dunk* of a case..."
The suit was to stop the curriculum. The county threw the curriculum out. What else was left to litigate?
What makes him "gay" in your book?
Fascinating, Anon. It appears that you think a guy's sexual orientation is defined by where he puts his penis. That's why Montgomery County needs a good comprehensive sex-ed curriculum, to combat exacty that kind of naivete.
I sometimes call that the "pornographication" of sex education, and I think it is a core offense routinely committed by the CRC.
JimK
"Maybe they were helping out in Dover..."
Thankfully, in Maryland, the judges think for themselves. In Pennsylvania, the judge's opinion consists of "cut and paste" from the NY Times.
We should be thankful.
Jim
The sex ed program is about sex. Not who we like to hang out with.
You know, if we're just talking about affection, I just saw King Kong last night. Maybe we need to discuss animal-human romances.
If you want to narrow the definition of sex down to what you see in porn movies, then that's your business. I want my children to get a more realistic view of it, for instance I would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love, and that a person needs to understand their feelings somewhat before they become sexually active.
JimK
"would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love, and that a person needs to understand their feelings somewhat before they become sexually active."
so why do you keep making references to science? love and feelings aren't the realm of science
"I would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love, and that a person needs to understand their feelings somewhat before they become sexually active."
Well, if you're afraid to tell them this yourself, consider taking them to church.
love and feelings aren't the realm of science
But of course they are. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on those subjects, whole journals dedicated to them.
JimK
"would like them to understand that sex has something to do with love"
how about teaching them that sex is part of a certain kind of love- the marital kind? not just acting on any impulse
"But of course they are. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on those subjects, whole journals dedicated to them."
You mean like the peer-reviewed stem cell research from South Korea. The disclosures there came from attempts at replication not peer review. By the way, most professions have peer review- it's not limited to science. It's not validation- it presumes integrity.
PasserBy said:
"Do you attack sickle-cell anemia by teaching kids that it's dangerous to be black?"
Anonymous replied:
"An ugly insult to minority members of our community."
Seeing as you talk of the "inherant risks" of male homosexuality, I don't why one would be an insult and the other not.
Theresa said:
... the unique risks of homosexual sex ...
The "unique" health risks of homosexual behaviour are not unique at all; they can apply to anyone who would behave in such a way; "homosexual" only describes that the behaviour is amongst persons of the same-sex.
Anonymous said:
Unrestrained as it is by any traditional moral system, male homosexuality is more likely to be promiscuous, random and, by definition, extramarital. It's all part of the attraction for some. It leads to tragic consequences.
It's interesting to know how you perceive male homosexuality, as it helps progression. What strikes me especially is when you say that male homosexuality is "by definition", extramarital. How did you come to such a conclusion? What exactly is your definition of "male homosexuality"?
Anonymous said:
Lesbianism is probably not that dangerous. Women do indeed to be less promiscuous and lesbianism is more a rejection of traditional male roles than a sexual preference.
You've hit a core point here: women do tend to be less promiscous than men. Recognise that this is a difference between males and females; forget about homosexuality altogether for the moment. As a side note: lesbianism is not a rejection of traditional male roles; it's merely the female equivalent of male homosexuality, and it definitely is less risky as there are no males involved.
There are men who want a stable relationship; there are men who simply want to "score" as many times as possible. For the promiscuous men, they are kept "at bay" by the women they decide to have sex with. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on the fact that women are generally frowned upon when they "sleep around", but men are not (and are often even praised). This is a generalisation, but it is true when looking at the population as a whole. From this you can see why male homosexuals generally tend to be promiscuous, and why lesbians are generally not. In short: it's a bloke thing, not a gay thing.
With that being said, there are many who don't fall into the stereotype. There are many stable monogamous male couples and the married couples (especially the ones with children) are the ones that completely break the gay stereotype in every way (and they should); their "behaviour" becomes as risky as a committed heterosexual couple.
If society is to continuously oppress homosexuals based on their misconceptions, they will only reinforce the stereotype and encourage homosexuals to conform to that stereotype. Unless society educate themselves and their children, it will only continue.
"But of course they are. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on those subjects, whole journals dedicated to them."
Haven't you learned yet that studying feelings will always be pseudo-scientific until we can read minds?
"What strikes me especially is when you say that male homosexuality is "by definition", extramarital. How did you come to such a conclusion?"
It's because marriage is, by definition, heterosexual. It was started and defined by the creator.
"As a side note: lesbianism is not a rejection of traditional male roles; it's merely the female equivalent of male homosexuality,"
I think you're wrong, Julian.
"If society is to continuously oppress homosexuals based on their misconceptions, they will only reinforce the stereotype and encourage homosexuals to conform to that stereotype. Unless society educate themselves and their children, it will only continue."
This is part of the problem, Julian. Education should reflect truth not create it. What TTF wants the schools to do is create a society that doesn't really exist. It will be a futile effort ultimately but who knows how much damage will be done in the meantime.
"Thankfully, in Maryland, the judges think for themselves. In Pennsylvania, the judge's opinion consists of "cut and paste" from the NY Times."
Yes, those W-appointed judges are all so inclined to "cut and paste" from the NY Times.
Anonymous said:
This is part of the problem, Julian. Education should reflect truth not create it. What TTF wants the schools to do is create a society that doesn't really exist. It will be a futile effort ultimately but who knows how much damage will be done in the meantime.
From what I read of the curriculum (the one that was scrapped), no truth was actually created; it merely presented what is currently known by mainstream professionals. I'm aware of what TTF wants to accomplish, and frankly I agree with most of it.
Anonymous said:
I think you're wrong, Julian.
At least exlpain why you think I'm wrong to help the discussion progress further.
Anonymous said:
It's because marriage is, by definition, heterosexual. It was started and defined by the creator.
I wasn't brought up believing that definition, despite the majority of marraiges conforming to it.
"Yes, those W-appointed judges are all so inclined to "cut and paste" from the NY Times."
This one did. Read the opinion yourself- not one original insight.
"not one original insight."
The same could be said about so-called INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It did not have "one original insight" that differed from CREATIONISM. No wonder the judge didn't need any new arguments. Been there, done that.
"Are you now going to tell us abstinence was not discussed in curriculum and was taken out? How about that condom video? How many times was abstinence said in that?
Blurring those lines again Theresa????"
Well, I can't find the blog - but at one time we had one on this, and when the cucumber video was all over the news I am pretty sure a reporter picked it up and mentioned it. It was something like condom=70+ and abstinence=3 as far as word count in the condom video.
Haven't you learned yet that studying feelings will always be pseudo-scientific until we can read minds?
There is a whole lot of science about feelings, aka emotion. What I find interesting is your attitude about it. Because you're uneducated, you assume that knowledge doesn't exist. Then, informed that such knowledge does exist, you feel somehow authorized to denigrate an entire field -- actually, a number of interrelated disciplines -- and hold that science can't apply to their work.
JimK
Theresa, maybe this will help you out, a few things that were in the curriculum that CRC opposed.
* The curriculum talked about how being sexual active can lower your self-esteem. Remember? CRC was horrified by that
* Sexual activity for teens can lead to disappointment. Yes, that's what the school was going to be teaching eighth-graders
* Being sexually active in your teen years can lead to depression and even suicide -- this is what they would have been taught in eighth grade
* You might lose your friends -- the schools would be teaching them this fact if the curriculum had gone forward
* Kids were going to be taught that promises made before sex are often forgotten afterwards
* Being sexually active can damage your self-concept: MCPS was going to teach that
* They would have been taught that the "negative results" of sexual activity for teens "far outweight the positive"
* Abstinence, they were going to be taught, enables you to preserve your self-esteem, and is the best choice "before marriage and for teens" -- this is what MCPS was going to teach eighth-grade students
* Tenth graders would have been taught about date/acquaintance rape, statutory rape, sexual harassment and sexual assault -- good stuff to know about, don't you think?
* They would be taught that abstinence "permits relationship to develop without sexual pressures" -- a good thing
* Students would have learned a lot about the responsibilities and lifestyle changes that accompany pregnancy and parenthood, and they do not look sweet for unwed teens
* Tenth graders were going to be encouraged to make a "commitment to chastity"
Lucky thing CRC and PFOX were able to block that curriculum, isn't it?
JimK
I don't know how many of those concepts were already in the sex ed curriculum Jim.
Here's though, and interesting word count :
From One .......to Fifty-eight: That's Acceleration!
Look at these stats about word usage in the new curriculum compared to the current curriculum. The speed at which the schools are embracing the opportunity to teach about sexual variations in the classroom is amazing and needs to be reported so that everyone can appreciate how quick they are to leave traditional values in the dust! Varoom...
Current Curriculum/New Curriculum
Homosexual and Homosexuality (0 times/19 times)
Sexual identity (1 time/20 times)
Sexual orientation and Orientation (0 times/16 times)
Partner (0 times/3 times)
SUMTOTAL: That's 1 time in the current curriculum compared to 58 times in the new!!
But wait there's more:
Husband/Wife/Father (0 times/0 times)
Abstinence (4 times/2 times)
Chastity (2 times/0 times)
Compared to the current curriculum, this is quite a change, and clearly this is more than a definition of the terms. It’s an in-depth discussion that the kids will receive. The key element here is the notion of “sexual identity”, about which they go into much detail for the 13 and 15 year olds. Sorry, but this isn’t an appropriate lesson for kids who are being encouraged by good parents not to be sexually active.
Why do the schools feel that they need to “teach” this in a classroom? If that’s not bad enough, the curriculum will get them actively questioning their sexual orientation.
From the curriculum:
Components of personal identity
a. Self-concept: Who am I?
1) Socially
2) Emotionally
3) Cognitively
4) Physically (both physical features and health)
5) Sexually (both expression and orientation)
If you don’t believe that a school would really try to do this in a classroom, just read it (the new curriculum). And this is only the tip of the iceberg......
Well, yes. Since the old curriculum contained absolutely no information about "sexual variations" as called for by COMAR, we should all expect certain words to be introduced that were not used before.
But I have to ask you Theresa, which "new curriculum" are you talking about?
In the revised and now rescinded 10th grade curriculum (which you can find by clicking on RESOURCES above and then on the second link from the top on the left side), the term "abstinence" appears four times, once on pages 20 and 25, and twice on page 27. Also on page 27, the first item under abstinence is "Commitment to chastity."
In the revised and now rescinded 8th grade curriculum (found at the same place, first link from the top), the term "abstinence" occurs 3 times, including once as the heading of a section about abstinence. See pages 9 and 24.
Christine
anonymous said:
"The judge rightly determined this is a false distinction."
Wrong anon...as usual.
anonymous said:
"Unless TTF disputes this, the conversation has ended here. The directories are for the purpose of parent to parent communication. CRC, a group of parents, used them for this purpose."
MCCPTA and Tilden PTSA disputed the usage already. It was CRC promoting their agenda and not to benefit any other parents other than those in CRC which had NOTHING to do with PTA.
The letter sent has already been dissected on lies within that body. Theresa herself was under discussion to be banned from her school community listserv for using it to promote CRC's homophobic agenda,etc.
People did not buy it then and neither do we now.
Anon -
Well, that's interesting.
The Tilden letter I do not believe included an opt-out email, but a lot of the other letters did.
We got a ton of emails - running 10 to 1 opting-out.
Probably 300-400 in all, and lots of parents thanking us for what we had done.
And for every infuriated public email I got at NCC accusing me of being a homophobe, without logically debating at all whether or not I the curriculum had gone over the line, I got several more private ones of support..this was back when the curriculum included the lovely "same sex play among adolescents is normal" quote.
And of course, CRC was right.
The judge agreed with us.
Christine -
The count was probably run on the curriculum that was originally approved by the CAC. The "same sex play one." That's the only reason I know that the numbers might be off - I didn't write that original blog.
Theresa said:
"And of course, CRC was right.
The judge agreed with us."
Just offered up a 10 day hold...no victory...just a temp hold.
Now where is CRC? Not on new CAC. Just how many attended the last CRC community meeting?
By the way Theresa did you not say this too to your school community:
"Two, the main issue I have with this curriculum is that parents were not notified; and were not given an abstinence only curriculum as an alternative."
Okay what were parents not notified about? What alternatives where there offered for those that opted out?
To refresh Theresa's memory:
Montgomery County Public Schools
Facts About the Health Education Curriculum
Note: material in this fact sheet is provided by MCPS and should answer the questions raised by PTA leaders.
On November 9, 2004 the Board of Education of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) adopted the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development by a unanimous vote. This Citizens Advisory Committee has 27members, including parents, citizens, students, and school staff.
The action of the Board does not affect most major components of the existing health curriculum and is in line with the curriculum of many other school systems in the region.
FACT: Abstinence continues to be the method advocated as the only absolute protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
FACT: Prior parental permission is required for students to participate in any class session on human sexuality and sexually transmitted infections.
FACT: Parents may review instructional materials on human sexuality and STIs in advance when considering whether to approve their child's participation in such instruction.
FACT: Alternative units are available if parents decide that they do not want their children to participate in the classes:
* An alternative unit on "Abstinence Only;"
* An alternative unit on stress management and environmental health; or
* An independent study unit on a health education topic of the parent's choosing.
FACT: Changes to the health education curriculum in Grades 8 and 10 were made as a result of a three-year study by a 27-member advisory committee.
FACT: The MCPS curriculum has addressed the subject of contraception since 1970 and the use of condoms since 1984.
FACT: At least four school districts in the Washington metropolitan area already include a condom use demonstration as part of their curriculum. (Howard, Prince George’s, District of Columbia, and Baltimore City)
FACT: The MCPS-produced video, Protect Yourself, reinforces abstinence and demonstrates condom use as a response to calls by public health officials to stem the rise in STIs.
FACT: At least five school districts in the Washington metropolitan areas already include instruction about sexual variation in their curriculum. (Howard, Prince George’s, Fairfax, District of Columbia, and Baltimore City)
FACT: The MCPS curriculum regarding sexual variation includes terms and definitions, and provides information to dispel stereotypes that encourage acts of bullying, hate and violence.
Montgomery County Public Schools
Background About the Health Education Curriculum
Action taken by the Board of Education on November 9, 2004 will result in the following:
1. The MCPS produced video, Protect Yourself, has been approved for systemwide use in all high school health education classes starting in spring 2005. In response to a significant increase in sexually transmitted infections among teenagers and calls by public health officials for instruction about condoms, this video was produced to provide a demonstration of proper condom use for the purpose disease prevention. The video supplements high school instruction on contraception that has been in place since 1970. It was field-tested in three high schools during spring 2004 and was well received by students and teachers. Teachers must complete mandatory training on how to use the video with students prior to using it in the classroom. (NOTE: Neither this video, nor any other video currently approved for use in MCPS includes discussion of flavored condoms.)
2. The revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 health education curriculum to include information about sexual variations will be field-tested in three middle schools (Grade 8 only) and three high schools during spring 2005. The revised curriculum defines terms such as gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation and focuses on dispelling stereotypes and misconceptions in an effort to diminish discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only the six schools participating in the field-test will have teachers trained on the use of the curriculum prior to providing the instruction on sexual variation that was approved by the Board of Education. The new curriculum revisions will be evaluated by parents, teachers, and students in the six schools participating in the field-test. Parents of students enrolled in Health Education in those six schools will be given an opportunity to review the curriculum prior to making the decision of signing the parental permission form. The evaluation results of the field-test will be submitted to the Advisory Committee in June 2005, and then the Committee will decide what further action they will recommend to the Board.
Instruction in family life and human sexuality is required under state law for Maryland public schools, with the specific curricular content under the discretion of local boards of education. The changes to the curriculum approved by the Board on November 9 were recommended as a result of a three-year study by the advisory committee and school system staff. The study found that the health education program lacked information taught in other school systems and hindered the ability of teachers to address questions brought by students and parents concerning sexual variations and disease prevention.
The Board of Education and the Montgomery County Public Schools are committed to supporting active parental involvement and a responsible instructional program.
Theresa
The "word count" approach is silly, but you're still wrong. Of course the sexual identity words went from zero to nothing -- that's the sexual variation component, required by state law and overdue regardless. Everybody knows that's in there, and that it wasn't before. I think you wasted your time counting those.
But this part is just wrong.
Abstinence (4 times/2 times)
Chastity (2 times/0 times)
"Partner" went to three occurrences, one of which was "marriage partner" and the others were in the usage "partner/friend." I can't imagine what's offensive about that, except when you pornographize it and imply that it means "sex partner" and not boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse.
In the 8th and 10th grade curricula, the word "abstinence" appears seven times, not including titles or the phrase "periodic abstinence" for the rhythm method. And the 10th grade curriculum suggested that students make a "commitment to chastity," so you're wrong to say that word isn't in there.
You're opposed to an evil curriculum that recommends a commitment to chastity? Maybe you should put something in your ears, stop listening to what people are saying, and go actually read the curriculum over again. Don't listen to what they tell you it says, go look at what it says.
And as far as the "sex play" line in the original proposed curriculum, I find it funny that you are quoting and liking a book that says almost exactly the same thing: Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual?" You quoted that to us.
Oh, the CRC got a lot of raised eyebrows out of misinterpreting that one line, as if it was "encouraging" children to engage in sex play -- I think you guys knew what it was really about. And it turns out to be a sentiment that you actually agree with.
Jim
I was asked two questions earlier today on this thread. Here are my answers:
1. Evidence that homosexuality is likely connected to genetic and hormonal matters?:
See, for example, the presentation of Dr. Wertsch, Chair of the American Medical Association's Advisory Committee on GLBT matters, to the Community Forum in Bethesda last September.
2. Shouldn't the dangers of sexual activity associated with homosexuality be included in the curriculum if homosexuality is to be mentioned?
The point is that those dangers were already discussed thoroughly in the STI unit. Indeed, last Spring, the CAC had the Director of Health Education set forth in some detail the materials that are used in the STI unit, so that we could be sure that such matters are adequately covered. So the materials that concerned Theresa are already in the curriculum.
My hope, frankly, is that this information is sufficiently sobering to students to lead them to delay potentially risky behaviors as long as possible -- ideally, until they have found their lifelong soulmate. But if the ideal is not met (and in life, the perfect is rarely found), then we want them to know how to minimize risks.
But to get back to Theresa's point, the revised curriculum language that MCPS Staff had drafted and that the CAC was considering in 2003-04 was not limited to issues of homosexuality, but, rather covered heterosexuality also. Indeed, if you go back and look at the unit, you will see that very little of the unit dealt with matters that were specifically about homosexuality. If there had been a proposal to merge the STI unit with the FLHS unit, then there would have been a discussion about the materials that were in the STI unit. But no one -- including Ms. Brown or Ms. Turner -- made such a suggestion. If anyone had proposed that we include ALL the STI materials in the teacher resources for the FLHS unit (as redundant as that would have been), then, if there had been agreement on that, ALL the STI materials would have been included. There are plenty of risks in heterosexual activity; to ONLY talk about risks of homosexual activity can only have one purpose: to stigmatize homosexuality.
In conclusion, let me say this, although it should be very obvious from everything I have written: A health education curriculum that would fail to provide comprehensive information on the risks of ALL kinds of sexual activity would be gravely deficient. Opponents of the Nov. 2004 revisions have sought to leave the public with the completely incorrect impression that the health curriculum did not provide that information. That is the sort of misrepresentation that makes useful public discourse so difficult.
Finally, on what should be a less contentious note, let's hear it for the Skins' defense. On to Seattle!
I want to respond to some of the textbook excerpts in Theresa’s posting. Since going the route of dueling statistics is not usually a constructive exercise, I’ll keep that to a minimum. But a few clarifications are worth making.
1) Regarding the term “safe sex” – the authors assert this phrase is used to oversell the effectiveness of condoms. In actuality, the term that is used – and has been for years -- is “SAFER sex”, precisely to drive home the point that sex is not risk-free. But it can be made less risky with proper condom use.
2) General statements in the book such as “condoms reduce risk but not to an acceptable level” are vague and subjective. Who gets to define acceptable? No parent wants his/her teen to cause a pregnancy or become pregnant – we all ideally want a risk of zero. But given that there is only one way to achieve that – abstinence – it is not surprising that a solid majority of adults in the U.S. (74%) (See National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, With One Voice, 2004) want teens to learn more about abstinence and contraception. This makes sense because if abstinence “fails” and no other method replaces it, then the risk skyrockets to a level beyond what condoms (or other contraceptives) would offer by way of protection. Teens need information about abstinence and contraception precisely so they can take steps to reduce their risk of pregnancy and STDs. And this includes accurate information about condom effectiveness.
3) Regarding condom efficacy specifically, it is important to distinguish between typical use and perfect use when citing statistics. Perfect use means proper use each time sexual intercourse occurs. Typical use takes into account inconsistent use and other factors that sometimes occur. With perfect use, condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. With typical use, they are 85% effective in preventing pregnancy (see Trussell, J. Contraceptive Efficacy 2004). While the authors (who cite lower effectiveness rates from a questionable source) conclude from this that condom use should not be encouraged, the more constructive and protective conclusion is that teens must be taught how to use condoms correctly and encouraged to do so every single time they have sex. And, in fact, this is exactly what the Montgomery County School Board was trying to do when it supplemented the curriculum to include the condom demonstration video – the county was trying to maximize the likelihood that teens who did have sex would not only use condoms, but use them consistently and correctly so they could benefit from the highest effectiveness rates.
I hope these clarifications are a helpful reminder that, although parents may have very personal, passionate and often divergent beliefs about what children should be taught about reproductive health, we have a common desire to keep them safe and healthy. As part of that, we need to have faith that if teens are given clear, user-friendly, and accurate information about the risks associated with sex how they can protect themselves from them, they will do the right thing. After all, they want to stay safe and healthy too.
Jim said -
"And as far as the "sex play" line in the original proposed curriculum, I find it funny that you are quoting and liking a book that says almost exactly the same thing: Many people - especially adolescents - experience a time of confusion about their sexual identity. someone may fee attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them, and wonder, "Am I homosexual?" You quoted that to us.
Oh, the CRC got a lot of raised eyebrows out of misinterpreting that one line, as if it was "encouraging" children to engage in sex play -- I think you guys knew what it was really about. And it turns out to be a sentiment that you actually agree with."
Agreed, they are similar. One enormous difference. One talks about having feelings, the other talks abou acting on them. That could be said as the key difference for a lot of this debate, couldn't it ?
Theresa said...
...Christine -
The count was probably run on the curriculum that was originally approved by the CAC. The "same sex play one." That's the only reason I know that the numbers might be off - I didn't write that original blog.
No, Theresa. The "count was [NOT] probably run on the curriculum that was originally approved by the CAC." The terms "abstinence" and "Commitment to chastity" appear the same number of times in both versions of the revised curriculum. The numbers you reported are just plain wrong. After doing some research, I've got another idea why your "numbers might be off."
But please, let me be sure I understand what you are saying to me in the quote above.
1. You did not actually write your comment that compared the numbers of time words are used in the old and new curricula.
2. You didn't use quotation marks or give credit to the original author but instead plagiarized the data and commentary as your own.
3. You took someone else's writing at face value without verfying its accuracy.
Is that about right? Apparently so.
After about 10 minutes of making a few clicks and skimming a few PDF pages, I easily found the actual facts about word counts in the revised curriculum. And now I've just spent another few minutes searching the CRCs blog archives and found that your comment about word usage actually contains an entire blog posted by "Andy." I repost Andy's original CRC blog entry here:
Thursday, February 10, 2005
From One .......to Fifty-eight: That's Acceleration!
Look at these stats about word usage in the new curriculum compared to the current curriculum. The speed at which the schools are embracing the opportunity to teach about sexual variations in the classroom is amazing and needs to be reported so that everyone can appreciate how quick they are to leave traditional values in the dust! Varoom...
Current Curriculum/New Curriculum
Homosexual and Homosexuality (0 times/19 times)
Sexual identity (1 time/20 times)
Sexual orientation and Orientation (0 times/16 times)
Partner (0 times/3 times)
SUMTOTAL: That's 1 time in the current curriculum compared to 58 times in the new!!
But wait there's more:
Husband/Wife/Father (0 times/0 times)
Abstinence (4 times/2 times)
Chastity (2 times/0 times)
Compared to the current curriculum, this is quite a change, and clearly this is more than a definition of the terms. It's an in-depth discussion that the kids will receive. The key element here is the notion of "sexual identity", about which they go into much detail for the 13 and 15 year olds. Sorry, but this isn't an appropriate lesson for kids who are being encouraged by good parents not to be sexually active.
Why do the schools feel that they need to "teach" this in a classroom? If that's not bad enough, the curriculum will get them actively questioning their sexual orientation.
From the curriculum:
Components of personal identity
a. Self-concept: Who am I?
1) Socially
2) Emotionally
3) Cognitively
4) Physically (both physical features and health)
5) Sexually (both expression and orientation)
If you don't believe that a school would really try to do this in a classroom, just read it ( the new curriculum). And this is only the tip of the iceberg......
- posted by Andy @ 10:07 PM
To find Andy's post on the CRC blog, go to this URL and scroll down to February 10, 2005: http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/archive/2005_02_01_archive.html
This blog was posted on the CRC website on 02-10-05 and remains in their archives today, 01-08-06. The CRC has allowed this this pack of "errors" to remain on their website for almost a year without ever bothering to check its accuracy. On January 6, 2006, CRC secretary, Theresa Rickman, plagiarized the erroneous blog and posted it without attribution on the TTF.org, Inc. blog. Let's see how long it takes CRC to print a correction to this archived pack of "errors."
Please note: I am giving the CRC the benefit of the doubt here by using the term "errors." However, should the CRC persist in maintaining uncorrected false information on their website, I may be forced to use the more correct term "lies."
Only the tip of the iceberg, indeed. I couldn't have said that any better myself, Theresa, uh Andy, uh whoever...
Christine
Theresa argues Agreed, they are similar. One enormous difference. One talks about having feelings, the other talks about acting on them. That could be said as the key difference for a lot of this debate, couldn't it ?
Let me quote your own book again: someone may feel attraction to a person of their own sex or have a person of their own sex demonstrate sexual feelings for them...
What do you suppose that word "demonstrate" means?
Of course it means "actions."
Your book, which you approve of, says exactly the same thing as the curriculum you disapprove of. The CRC misconstrued that one line, over and over again, trying to make it sound like MCPS was advocating sexual experimentation, when you knew they weren't. It was just something you could make ugly: the CRC's role in life, making beautiful things ugly.
JimK
Just to keep the record clear, the "same sex play" phrase was, at my urging, administratively taken out of the curriculum for piloting and replaced with language that simply made it clear that fleeting same sex attraction did not necessarily mean that someone is gay. This occurred during the weeks following the BOE vote on piloting the curriculum. THAT is the kind of thing that piloting a new curriculum is designed to do: Catch things that could be improved and improve them.
Theresa said:
"And for every infuriated public email I got at NCC accusing me of being a homophobe, without logically debating at all whether or not I the curriculum had gone over the line, I got several more private ones of support..this was back when the curriculum included the lovely "same sex play among adolescents is normal" quote."
Theresa you were told by quite a number of parents in your school community to let parents make up their own minds while those same parents were told where to access all MCPS items to read themselves and not rely on anyone's interpretation including yours. They did not want you to tell them how to parent their children on this issue.
In fact one of the old CAC committee members from your school community took you to task for playing fast and loose with your spin about old CAC members and the curriculum.
You apparently could not hang with that and continued on where you then were looked at for being banned. ..and the sex play thing.....well Jim pointed out to you that your own textbook you are quoting here said the same thing...did you tell your school community that?
David -
Do you believe that recent statistics about MSM AIDS infection rates - should be included anywhere in the new curriculum - whether they go in the STI section or not....
The numbers are something like 47% of all new infections can be attributed to MSM - I believe. It would seem to me prudent to point out to kids that by engaging in male homosexual sexual activity they are at a higher risk of catching a disease than with heterosexual sexual activity.
You don't agree ?
This is a post from the CRC blog.
It discusses the resources in more detail. David, I will have to go send your post to Retta and ask her to respond.
This series was written by Bob -
it is a 4 part series.
APPROVED!!! - Part 1 of 4
Link is here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/archive/2005_02_01_archive.html
It is about 2/3 down.
(Download the entire series)
In this series of posts, FACTS will be revealed about how the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Development, or CAC, (by the way, some have dubbed 'CAC' to mean Cucumber And Condom committee, but that's not the point here) majority and leader membership chose to reject some, and not even consider other, factual information representing opposing points of view, in preparing the new sex-ed curriculum.
Does the non-inclusive nature of these actions, lead one to assume a pre-determined agenda was being followed by the Committee and the Board of Education?
One might think so, because the MCPS Superintendent, and Board of Education, did NOTHING to intervene after being informed. And specifically, the Superintendent stated: "I’m sure you realize that I cannot dictate to the committee how they choose to operate or what their decisions should be". Dictate? No! Question? Yes! Investigate? Yes! Personally attend to a matter to make sure all rules were followed? Yes! That's why he is paid $300,000 a year! (Don't believe it?) That's MORE than the President of the United States. Now leading the Montgomery County School System is a big job. But bigger than leading the free world? Especially, when the person in charge says in effect, who am I to question a BOE Committee?
…
Many times members of the CAC expressed concerns regarding the recommendations for teacher resources for the new eighth grade sex-ed curriculum that have been approved by the Committee, and now as of November 8, 2004, the BOA.
The principle concerns in this regard were manifest in the materials approved by the Committee, and now the BOA, that contain factually incorrect, incomplete, and biased material which now has the very real potential of putting the children of Montgomery County's health and safety at risk.
These members also expressed concerns that the Committee had compounded this hazard to our children by systematically (and deliberately?) excluding materials from recognized professional sources, including the U Centers for Disease Control, that the Committee majority considered (one can reason) might convey a message counter to the one it sought to promote.
Reluctantly, these CAC members concluded that the Committee was driven more by an intolerance of differing viewpoints, and a desire to promote a specific agenda, rather than a reasonable concern for the presentation of a balanced health and safety children's program in our school system.
And when the MCPS Superintendent and Board of Education were made aware of this, they did, NOTHING.
The CAC members who raised these concerns outlined three major areas to the Superintendent and Board of Education:
The 15 materials approved by the Committee as teacher resources for the 8th grade, and the approved 8th grade curriculum, with specific reference to the inadequacies and inaccuracies found therein.
A listing of materials from recognized governmental and professional organizations that had either been rejected, or refused even for consideration, by the Committee.
A description of what could be termed; biased, improper (or possibly worse?), procedures by the Committee to suppress any non-conforming, or diverse, points of view, even those that were intended to present all factual material available and therefore establish a balance in the new curriculum.
Subsequent posts will examine each of these three areas.
While these CAC members acknowledged that the positions taken by the majority of the Committee reflected sincere and strongly held feelings, those feelings should not have compelled that majority to act in ways contrary to the express purposes for which the Committee was created, and certainly not to even create the appearance of a violation of any of the guidelines established by the BOA governing Committee protocols.
And so a question could be asked; Did the actions and recommendations of the CAC majority in the approval and development of the new sex-ed curriculum, place advancement of a social agenda before the health and welfare of our children, by refusing the inclusion of information considered contrary to that agenda, even when such information directly addressed the children’s welfare?
- continued -
Theresa said:
"This series was written by Bob -
it is a 4 part series."
Who is Bob??????????
theresa said:
"The numbers are something like 47% of all new infections can be attributed to MSM - I believe. It would seem to me prudent to point out to kids that by engaging in male homosexual sexual activity they are at a higher risk of catching a disease than with heterosexual sexual activity."
Theresa with or without condom protection, etc., for both sets? Or are we assuming that sex among gays is always the riskest and heterosexuals do not have anal or oral sex, etc., ever without protection?
Spare us, please! We already read all 4 parts in February 2005 when the last of them was posted to your no-comments-allowed blog.
Of course, if there's a Part 5 with transcripts of Retta's and Jackie's CAC meeting tapes, we'd be interested in reading those.
See if you can't get Retta to cough those up too, will you please, Theresa?
Thanks!
anonymous said:
"Spare us, please! We already read all 4 parts in February 2005 when the last of them was posted to your no-comments-allowed blog."
Well CRC's one sided blog/forum is right in line with so called CRC public forum that sucks out the wazoo--no differing views allowed no siree.
Only Retta as "CRC Precious"(funny moniker) seems to use it. Of course all one sided from Retta's thoughts on what is important to read and hear about. But then again while she is still trying to get herself on new CAC..what else is left for her and CRC to do?
Anyone want to venture an explanation as to why PFOX and CRC had not offered up a parent of an "exgay" for CAC to represent them?
Wow! You've all been busy. I won't wade in, except to respond to Theresa who troubled herself to find me two links.
I will respond to Theresa’s links that she so kindly provided. I want to say, at the top, that whenever I have blogged on this topic, and I have done so since the blog’s beginning, I have never had anyone refute a word of what I have said. So I should, in a logical world, expect that I’ve put this issue to sleep, but apparently I have not.
As to the first link: http://health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/illnesses.html?article=2870&page=1
This is a webpage written by a Dr. Ann Reyes, psychologist. I could find nothing about her biography, credentials, or experience. What I did find were other such pages written about mental health conditions.
She is clearly not an expert on sex and gender.
>Overview
A gender identity disorder is one in which a person wants to be the opposite sex. The person may also believe that he or she is "trapped" in a body of the wrong sex.<
This is quite simplistic, using old terms like “trapped” to provide an overview. Maybe that’s ok for the general population, who until recently thought of transsexualism solely on the basis of that phrase, “Woman trapped in a man’s body.”
The first sentence is incorrect as well. A transsexual person doesn’t WANT to be the opposite sex. This person IS the sex which is opposite to their genitals (I use the word “their” as being gender neutral, if not grammatically correct.). The two sentences only make sense when using an incorrect assumption – one’s sex is determined by one’s genitals, nothing more, nothing less. While that has been the legal definition in most places until very recently, it is highly inadequate and too limiting.
> What is going on in the body?
Gender identity disorder is a profound disturbance of a person's sense of sexual identity. This disorder can begin as early as 2 years of age.<
Again, based on a fundamentally incorrect assumption. What is going on “in the body” is a type of intersex where all the markers of sex do not line up, are not congruent, with all the others. This person’s sexual identity is neither disturbed nor profoundly disturbed. The genitals do not match the brain and mind, and more importantly, the child’s mind and hence, behavior, do not meet the parents’ expectations.
I can’t argue with her signs and symptoms list. And I do appreciate that she distinguishes sexual identity from sexual orientation.
>What are the causes and risks of the condition?
Gender identity disorder occurs more often in males than in females. No one knows what causes this disorder. Some theories suggest the disorder may be caused by:
• chromosomal abnormality
• imbalances in hormones
• problems with early parent-child bonding
• harmful child-rearing practices<
I think this is the section Theresa particularly likes.
Intersex persons may very well have chromosomal variations (there is nothing “abnormal” with them – they happen all the time through nature). No purely neurologically intersexed person (transsexual) has been shown to have a chromosomal variation. So that is plain wrong, but useful in placing transsexualism as a form of intersex, which it is, by definition.
Hormonal imbalances may very well play a role, but only in utero, not after. I was made such by the embryotoxin DES, a very potent estrogen in which I was bathed during gestation. But the implication here is that an adult male who takes estrogens can become transsexual, and that is flat out wrong. Such men would grow breasts, develop a female fat distribution, stop losing their hair, notice a drop in libido, but that’s about it. Btw, this is a very common complication of the hormonal treatment of prostate cancer, and this group of men is the largest population of “cross-gendered (by body, not mind)” persons in the country.
The next two have been promulgated for 100 years, have been debated, examined, and had many therapies based on them – all to no avail. As I’ve said repeatedly, there is no scientific evidence that either is correct. No data, no experimental studies, no anatomical or physiological studies to back this up. Only androcentric hunches used to somehow explain a biological phenomenon to men who were never interested in understanding sex and gender outside their own limited culture. The “problems” as they’ve been described are always highly vague and based on some Freudian construct that most people consider laughable today. Ironically, the only people who take Freud seriously on this topic are the Christian fundamentalists who hate everything else about him and list him in the pantheon, the trinity, of modern thinkers whom they feel obligated to destroy – Marx, Freud and Darwin. Bottom line, those theories are like ID – hunches, speculation based on nothing which has yielded nothing of value.
> What can be done to prevent the condition?
There is no known prevention for gender identity disorder<
Well, actually there is, at least in some cases. May case could have been prevented, as well as thousands of other like me, and a host of millions who have been potentially exposed to similar endocrine disrupting compounds. ¼ of all American women have levels of phthalates sufficient to cause observable feminization of their male infants. I would think the fundamentalists would be concerned about this, but with the exception of one press release – nothing. Because it would mean breaking bread with those awful liberal environmentalists.
As for the other cases, she’s correct, there is no prevention. Which, of course, contradicts the two parental behavior theories she’s listed above, since if it’s the parents’ fault, it certainly can be prevented.
>How is the condition diagnosed?
A physical exam should be done to see if the person has any other any other condition that could be causing a sex identity problem. The diagnosis of gender identity disorder is made only if the person is distressed or has problems in social, interpersonal, or occupational functioning.<
Correct, though again the language is stilted.
> What are the long-term effects of the condition?
A person with gender identity disorder is usually isolated. Isolation and ostracism adds to the low self-esteem, and the person is more prone to suicide attempts. The disorder also increases the person's risk for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, and anxiety disorders.<
Quite true when not dealt with by the person.
> What are the risks to others?
There are no risks to others from gender identity disorder.<
True as well, which begs the question – why are Theresa and Ben Patton and Ruth Jacobs’ so bent out of shape by us?
> What are the treatments for the condition?
Individual and family counseling early in gender identity disorder can often help a person get used to his or her biologic sex. This has been shown to reduce later transsexual behavior and distress. In more severe cases, a sex-change operation may be an option. This is surgery to change the person's genitals. It also includes giving hormones. However, before this treatment is considered, the person will undergo in-depth psychological and psychiatric evaluation and counseling. <
Ah, here’s the rub. More conversion therapy nonsense. There’s NO evidence that any kind of counseling can help the trans child or transperson to “get used to his or her biologic sex.” There has been nothing that has shown later “transsexual behavior and distress” has been reduced. In most cases it just steadily increases. Counseling can help the parents and family get used to the transperson’s gender identity and expression and brain sex.
What is so sad is the blindness of those practitioners who have believed that such coercive and abusive counseling can work. Fortunately, few try this with adults anymore. The problems are now with the parents of children and adolescents who just can’t deal with the situation. I’ve said this before – ALMOST ALL OF US HAVE PUT OURSELVES THROUGH THE MOST RIGOROUS CONVERSION THERAPY IMAGINABLE, 24/7 FOR DECADE UPON DECADE, WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENCES MENTIONED ABOVE OF UNTREATED TRANSSEXUALISM. There has been nothing any psychiatrist or psychologist has come up, or could come up, that can in any way compare to our self-treatment. We have climbed Everest, fought in the Special Forces, sailed around the world, done every macho job imaginable, got married as the wrong gender, produced children, played the expected social role – and failed, each and every time. It’s time that the last remnants of the Freudians have a little respect for the agonies and tribulations to which we’ve subjected ourselves, and which make their efforts appear puny in comparison.
Social transition and surgical reconstruction, when available and affordable, is the only effective treatment. I refer you to the book by Martin Seligman, What You Can Change and What You Can’t. This is the man who developed Learned Optimism, and is one of the co-developers of cognitive behavioral therapy (the only talk therapy scientifically proven to work) and one of the most upbeat psychiatrists around. He recognized a decade ago that transsexualism was the psychiatric condition least responsive to any kind of mental health intervention. We now know why – because it is not a psychiatric condition.
What are the side effects of the treatments?
There are possible side effects with any surgery. These include bleeding, infection, and allergic reaction to the anesthesia.
True, and the norm with any surgery.
What happens after treatment for the condition?
A person with gender identity disorder who has a sex-change operation is often able to have good sexual relations. Hormones will be continued after surgery.
Interesting, that her first choice is referring to “good sexual relations.” Yes, it’s true, but the effects on one’s total being are profound and sexual relations is a minor aspect of that. And, again, how in the world can genital reconstruction cure something called “gender identity disorder,” unless it isn’t a gender identity disorder to begin with?
How is the condition monitored?
A person with gender identity disorder often needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis.
This is ridiculous. A transwoman gets evaluated by her physician just like all other post-menopausal women.
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/archive/2005_01_01_archive.html
As for this link, yes, I remember reading Ms. Marcus’ sad op-ed, wondering how such an apparently intelligent woman could be so ignorant. I wrote to her, asked to meet with her, and she ignored me. A woman with her background should make an effort to learn about an issue like this, rather than run scared into Theresa’s arms. Ah, well. Maybe she’s seen Transamerica by now and feels better.
As for Theresa’s point about “gender identity disorder,” my sense of the reason she posted it is because she imagines there’s some liberal bias inherent in the AAP, and she wanted to point out the “disorder” aspect of it. I think I put that to bed above. I also expect GID will be out of the DSM-V in 2010, and transsexualism will be categorized as what it is – another form of intersex, of a purely neurologic variety, caused by endocrine disruptors and other unknown factors. Again, I refer you to Professor Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow, now out in paper, and Johns Hopkins’ Deborah Rudacille’s The Riddle of Gender, out in paper next month.
David, I understand your trying to clear up the facts about the statement that same-sex play is common in kids and doesn't mean they're gay. It was included in earlier drafts of the curriculum, and taken out later, I think mainly because of the controversy surrounding the wording.
But the fact is, there was only controversy because certain dishonest people tried to pretend is said something it didn't. It is simply true that younger adolescents may have sexual feelings they don't understand, that they're curious, and that sometimes they act out in experimental or playful ways. Most people know what the game of "doctor" is about. And the other fact is, this kind of play among kids, with same-sex playmates, does not mean you're gay. Which is what the "same-sex play" statement actually said.
I found it fascinating that Theresa proudly quoted a nearly identical statement in her Catholic sex-ed book, telling us how much she agreed with it, while in the same discussion she mentions the quote from the curriculum as objectionable.
The fact is, the CRC was not opposed to details of the actual curriculum, they never wanted to improve it. If you read it, you see there really is nothing "pro-homosexual" or anything that encourages sexual experimentation in the proposed curricuula for 8th and 10th grades. It is a very cautious and conservative course on human sexual behavior. Yes, it was comprehensive, and yes it was inclusive; that was the district's intention, that's what the state wants, and that's what the people of the Montgomery County -- in fact, of the entire country -- want. The CRC's goal was not to fix the curriculum, but to destroy it. They didn't oppose it for what it said; to them the new sex-ed curriculum merely provided an opportunity to undermine the public schools and attempt a coup. Throw out the school board, replace them with extremists ... crazy idea.
I can't tell if Theresa was influenced by the propagandists of the CRC leadership, or if she was one of them. She seems to be a person who thinks for herself, with a very conservative tendency, yet she parrots the mistinterpretations promulgated by the anti-MCPS groups word for word. I'd be curious to know who starts this stuff.
JimK
Jim K writes:
"I can't tell if Theresa was influenced by the propagandists of the CRC leadership, or if she was one of them. She seems to be a person who thinks for herself, with a very conservative tendency, yet she parrots the mistinterpretations promulgated by the anti-MCPS groups word for word. I'd be curious to know who starts this stuff."
___________________
Theresa knows exactly what she is doing in trying to tell everyone else what to do to raise their children. Never mind she should just raise her own and let other parents do the same. She can opt her children out of sex ed anytime.
Please remeber that while the lawsuit was being plotted by CRC Theresa offered herself and her children up as plaintiffs for the Garza/CRC/PFOX hatched plan to sue sue sue.
Innocent in all this..not likely.
_________________
"Theresa the alarmist" wrote to our school community last spring:
The official new sex ed curriculum link on the MCPS
website
Attention all MCPS parents, and particularly those parent with older
kids in
BCC (one of the pilot schools for the new sex-ed curriculum) !
Please go read what your children are about to be exposed to! If you
find
this objectionable, please forward immediately to parents at the pilots
schools for this spring . this will become permanent at all schools
after
this spring !
Here is the actual link to the curriculum on the MCPS web site ..
(Alison, note this is not an external site)
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/boe/meetings/agenda/2004-05/2004-1109/CACFLHD%
2020
03-04%20STAFF%20.pdf
Okay, the 8th grade curriculum starts about 20 pages in after several
memorandums including this statement :
1. Gender Identity: a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or
she
is
male or female.
Here are the parts from the curriculum I (personally, in my on-sided and
clearly biased way) find objectionable: Read #1A - why should kids be
encouraged to develop a sexual identity at age 12? 1B) your sexual
identity
is related to your "sexual gender identity "-you're your gender identity
ISN'T defined according your genitals. "Well, I have a penis but I
think I
am really female and that I was just assigned the wrong set of
plumbing."
Is that the message you want your child receiving? That's what he is
going
to get.
This is on page 9 of the 8th grade curriculum: (PLEASE GO CHECK) .. so
we
are advising already confused adolescents to go question their sexual
gender
? This is what this curriculum does.. I feel sorry for any mom with
a
slightly effeminate or very intellectual teenage boy that hasn't gotten
the
female attention he might desire. what does this curriculum do to that
child's self esteem, and self-concept? It virtually pushes him in a
homosexual direction.. Please go read the actual curriculum!!!
Please go read the actual curriculum.
Please go read the actual curriculum.
YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS!
Quotes from the curriculum :
I. Define Terms Related to Human Sexuality
A. What is Human Sexuality? This term refers to emotional closeness,
sexual
health and reproduction, and sexual identity. As we study human
sexuality we
will discuss how you develop your individual sexual identity. (Source:
Life
Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Washington, D.C page 123)
B. What is Sexual Identity? This term refers to a person's understanding
of
who
she or he is sexually, including the sense of being male or female.
Sexual
identity can be thought of as three interlocking pieces: gender
identity,
gender
role and sexual orientation. Together, these pieces of sexual identity
affect how
each person sees herself or himself and each piece is important:
(Source:
Life
Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC, Page 125).
1. Gender Identity: a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or
she
is
male or female. Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol.
92, No. 4 (Oct. 1993), pp. 631-34
2. Gender Role: knowing what it means to be male or female, or what a
man
or woman can or cannot do because of their gender. Some things are
determined by the way male or female bodies are built. For example, only
women menstruate and only men produce sperm. Other things are
culturally determined. In our culture, only women wear dresses to work,
but in other cultures, men wear skirt-like outfits everywhere. (Source:
Life
Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC, Page 125).
3. Sexual Orientation: the persistent pattern of physical and/or
emotional
attraction to members of the same or opposite sex (gender). Included in
this
are heterosexuality (opposite-gender attractions), homosexuality
(samegender
attractions), and bisexuality (attractions to members of both
genders). (Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol. 92,
No.
4 (Oct. 1993), pp. 631-34)
a. Heterosexual Or "Straight" refers to people whose sexual,
emotional and affectional feelings are for the opposite gender (sex):
Men who are attracted to women, and women who are attracted to
men. (Source: American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet: Gay,
10
Lesbian and Bisexual Issues (May 2000)).
b. Homosexual or Gay refers to people whose sexual, emotional and
affectional feelings are for the same gender (sex): Men who are
attracted to men; and women who are attracted to women. (Source:
American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual Issues (May 2000)).
c. Lesbian refers to women who are homosexual. (Source: American
Psychological Association Online, Answers to your Questions
About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. (July2003)
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
d. Bisexual or "Bi" refers to people whose sexual, emotional and
affectional feelings are for both genders. (Source: Id).
For Teacher Reference Only
Questioning refers to people who are uncertain as to their sexual
orientation. (No source)
Transgender refers to someone whose gender identity or expression
differs
from conventional
expectations for their physical sex. This term includes transsexual and
transvestite.(Source:
American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Oct. 1993),
pp.
631-34)
Coming Out refers to the process in which a person identifies himself or
herself as
homosexual or bisexual to family, friends and other significant people
in
his or her life.
(Source: American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual Issues
(May 2000)).
Intersexed refers to people who are born with anatomy or physiology
(ambiguous genitalia)
that differs from cultural and/or medical ideals of male and female.
(School
Resource
AND ALSO : (page 16)
>From the document ON the MCPS web site.. (READ #3)
B. Myths regarding sexual orientation
1. Myth: Homosexuality is a mental health disorder.
Fact: All major professional mental health organizations affirm that
homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
2. Myth: If you are "straight", you can become homosexual.
Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation
is
not
a choice.
3. Myth: You're a homosexual if you've had sex with, or even had a "sexy
dream" about someone of the same gender.
Fact: Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during
early adolescence and does not prove long-term sexual orientation.
4. Myth: Children of homosexual parents/guardians will become
homosexuals.
Fact: Having homosexual parents/guardians does not predispose you to
being homosexual.
Here are the pilot schools :
* Martin Luther
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/mlkms/homepage.htm
King Middle School, Germantown, Maryland
* Tilden Middle School
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/tildenms/
Rockville, Maryland
* White Oak Middle http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/whiteoakms/
School, Silver Spring, Maryland
and three high schools:
* Bethesda-Chevy Chase High
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/bcchs/
School, Bethesda, Maryland
* Seneca Valley
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/senecavalleyhs/
High School, Germantown Maryland
* Springbrook High
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/springbrookhs/School, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Please attend our meeting, please attend our meeting this coming
Saturday
morning for more information:
www.mcpscurriculum.com http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/
**********************
"Theresa the alarmist" also wrote to our school community:
CRC is sponsoring a town hall meeting on March 19th where we will show
controversial condom video. Information on the townhall meeting is here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/meetings.htm
In direct violation of Maryland law, THERE IS NO OPT-OUT provision for
portions of the sex ed curriculum. Please check here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/prmar6.htm. The new sex ed curriculum
encourages 10th graders to "determine their sexual identity" and tells them
that "same sex play among adolescents" is normal. The curriculum also
tells them that homosexuality is not a choice, some people are born that way
- this is a raging debate that science has produced no clear stand on. The
curriculum does not tell the children about the health risks associated with
homosexuality, while defending homosexual behavior. Tolerance is one thing,
advocacy is quite another. The curriculum very clearly crosses over from
"defining homosexuality" (which they were tasked to do) to "defending and
advocating homosexuality". Read some of the teacher resources, which
advocate that HIGHSCHOOLS should establish same sex bathrooms to provide for
transsexual students.
The Montgomery county BOE did not follow it's own policies in passing the
curriculum (broke its own laws), please check here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/blog/2005/02/birth-of-new-sex-ed-curriculum.ht
ml and here :
http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/prfeb14.htm
If you would like to investigate for yourself, the new curriculum is posted
here: http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/New_FLHD_Curriculum.pdf
Read it for yourself. The Montgomery County BOE has made it just about
impossible to find on their website.
I wonder why?
And if you would like to know where this is all going to end up if you don't
get involved NOW, check this lovely little article from our friends in
Massachusetts (Mass high schools promoted a gay sex day - where they taught
12 year olds in graphic sexual terms what FISTING is..)
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist1.htm
Theresa
Thanks for digging that out, Anon. I guess my question was not very clear. I was looking around the web a couple of weeks ago and came across a group in Kansas City, I think, and they were saying exactly the same stuff that the CRC says. Different topic, something happening over there, but their comments were identical to what we get here in Montgomery County. And the "mad dad" wackos up in Massachusetts -- exactly the same stuff. Different stimulus, same response.
It's not that somebody looks at a curriculum, processes the information cognitively, and decides that they oppose it. No, it's coming from somewhere. Somebody has decided that "they," whoever they are, should react to whatever happens in exactly this way. You should say, "They're encouraging children to declare that they're gay in fifth grade." You should say, "They're teaching six-graders how to practice anal sex." It obviously doesn't matter what's actually in the curriculum, or what has actually happened, they say this ridiculous stuff no matter what. And of course it's an argument you can't win, because there's no substance to it. You say, It doesn't encourage kids to experiment sexually, and they say, Yes it does, and then they quote some fake statistics and you say, Those statistics were discredited the moment they were published, and they say, No they weren't, and continue to quote them.
It's like when we had our forum, and one of the papers quoted Michelle Turner saying, Where's the science? As if there wasn't any. There is a ton of science about sexuality and sexual orientation. But she can just pretend there isn't any, and stupid people will respond to that, as if there really wasn't any science and all this debate was was just some people expressing their opinions. Anon, in this very thread, pulled the same thing. First he said there was no science, then, informed that there was, he said that there can't be a science of psychology. Just can't, because he doesn't get it.
So, I don't know where they get this kind of thinking. It seems to come from somewhere, and I would love, as a student of human behavior, to understand where it originates and how it propagates.
JimK
Jim K said:
"So, I don't know where they get this kind of thinking. It seems to come from somewhere, and I would love, as a student of human behavior, to understand where it originates and how it propagates."
Well here is "Theresa the alarmist's" best shot to explain this.
Take it away Theresa.
And I will ask Theresa, since I spent a great deal of time explaining things to her, if she still stands by the comments below:
>Here are the parts from the curriculum I (personally, in my on-sided and clearly biased way) find objectionable: Read #1A - why should kids be encouraged to develop a sexual identity at age 12? 1B) your sexual identity is related to your "sexual gender identity "- your gender identity ISN'T defined according your genitals. "Well, I have a penis but I think I
am really female and that I was just assigned the wrong set of plumbing."
Is that the message you want your child receiving? That's what he is
going to get.<
After everything I wrote, do you still not understand that all children are born with a gender identity? That in the very uncommon situation where a child has felt having a penis didn't fit her mind that she shouldn't be shamed, ridiculed, treated as mentally ill, but instead repsected as a human with an intersex condition? No child can be encouraged to develop a gneder identity at any age, but it's part of the mental wiring we all have, and no non-transsexual child will have any problem with being taught that in rare instances the plumbing and wiring do NOT match up.
>This is on page 9 of the 8th grade curriculum: (PLEASE GO CHECK) .. so
we are advising already confused adolescents to go question their sexual gender ? This is what this curriculum does.. I feel sorry for any mom with a slightly effeminate or very intellectual teenage boy that hasn't gotten the female attention he might desire. what does this curriculum do to that child's self esteem, and self-concept? It virtually pushes him in a homosexual direction.. Please go read the actual curriculum!!!<
Aside from the nonsense you threw in about "inadequate female attention," do you still believe that a feminine (effeminate is a derogatory modifier)teenage boy is suddenly going to believe he's really a girl, if he hasn't already believed so? Do you not understand that most younger boys who have been studied and "diagnosed" as very feminine turn out to be gay, and not transsexual? That telling them they are sick or mentally ill is what causes poor self esteem and self-concept (whatever that means)? That being intellectual has nothing to do with either gender identity, sexual orientation, or lack of "mother love"?
"It's like when we had our forum, and one of the papers quoted Michelle Turner saying, Where's the science? As if there wasn't any. There is a ton of science about sexuality and sexual orientation. But she can just pretend there isn't any, and stupid people will respond to that, as if there really wasn't any science and all this debate was was just some people expressing their opinions. Anon, in this very thread, pulled the same thing. First he said there was no science, then, informed that there was, he said that there can't be a science of psychology. Just can't, because he doesn't get it."
OK, Jim. Tell us one study, any study, that indicates that there is "no choice" about sexual preferences.
anonymous said:
"OK, Jim. Tell us one study, any study, that indicates that there is "no choice" about sexual preferences."
This anon just running in circles over his show me the science fetish. "Theresa the alarmist" should help you out too.
"This anon just running in circles over his show me the science fetish. "Theresa the alarmist" should help you out too."
Could anyone translate this? I don't speak nonsense.
OK, Jim. Tell us one study, any study, that indicates that there is "no choice" about sexual preferences.
Per Linstroem, Ivanka Savic and Hans Berglund studied PET scans of human brains exposed to human pheromones. The results were reported by Dr. Savic in the 2005 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. We have posted Dr. Wertsch's PowerPoint presentation from our September 25, 2005 educational forum here, and it includes some slides about this research.
The brains of homosexual males responded in the same manner as the brains of heterosexual females to pheromones; specifically brains of people in both groups showed arousal in response to androstadien (male) pheromones and remained unaroused in response to (female) pheromone estratetraen. This reaction was completely opposite to the reactions of heterosexual males and homosexual females. For both of these groups, pheromone estratetraen caused arousal in the brain and androstadien pheromones did not.
Each of us has no choice how our brain responds to these chemicals. I suppose it might be possible to teach some people to alter this brain chemical reaction with biofeedback training, (if you think so, show us some studies that say so) but I can say with some pretty good certainty that no one has undergone biofeedback training to learn to respond with arousal to the pheromones of someone of their own gender.
These research findings show that "there's 'no choice' about sexual preferences" in brain responses to pheromones.
Christine
Christine
This study was not published until after the proposed curriculum last year had been rejected so it wasn't a factor in the curriculum ejected by the judge.
It is also too recent to be replicated for confirmation purposes.
All other studies like this have only shown increased indicators in homosexuals not 100% correlation, indicating that if there is a tendency, it can be resisted (that's called choice). I'll look into that and get back to you.
Here's what I do know though:
The author of this study has said that the study does not indicate whether the response is the result of innate biology or association with past experiences. In other words, it's possible that homosexuals respond to the scent of male sweat in this way because they made a choice at some point to engage in homosexual activity and now they associate the scent of male sweat with past pleasurable sexual activity.
Here's a direct quote from the study:
"The difference between HoM and HeM could reflect a variant differentiation of the anterior hypothalamus in HoM, leading to an altered response pattern. Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST. These tentative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, nor can they be discriminated on the basis of the present PET data."
Interesting that your AMA expert didn't mention this remark in the conclusion of the study.
By the way, this study also found this effect did not apply to lesbians. This bolsters my personal theory that lesbianism is not based on sexual attraction at all but on the rejection of traditional male roles in society.
... bolsters my personal theory ...
No, it doesn't. And it also doesn't qualify you to critique scientific research in a field that you know nothing about.
JimK
"No, it doesn't. And it also doesn't qualify you to critique scientific research in a field that you know nothing about."
I didn't critique the research, Jim. I quoted it. Your AMA "expert" distorted it by leaving out some key phrases.
No, Anon, I was talking about your 1.false (inductive, non-Popperian) inference from data to theory, and mostly to 2. your illiterate comments about statistical relationships and causality ("not 100% correlation").
JimK
Anonymous said...
" This bolsters my personal theory that lesbianism is not based on sexual attraction at all but on the rejection of traditional male roles in society."
What a dumb thing to say...but then again from this anon..well we understand that warped logic.
Keep going anon.. keep outing yourself as an idiot.
No doubt, Anon-inane is an idiot who knows nothing about the scientific method. Very little is 100% anything in the natural world, especially when the quantum world is built up of probabilities. I can't wait for Anon to enlighten us on quantum mechanics some day.
As for traditional morality -- again (I'm getting tired of having to say this) -- traditional moral society (ie, Christian society) enforced and encouraged slavery until very recently. It treated women as property until recently. And whether you like it or not, your traditional sexual morality simply is unworkable in modern society where humans do not get married at puberty.
"No, Anon, I was talking about your 1.false (inductive, non-Popperian) inference from data to theory, and mostly to 2. your illiterate comments about statistical relationships and causality ("not 100% correlation")."
Oh, I see, Jim. You were referring to my fleeting reference to other studies. We can talk about those next if you'd like. But first:
How about the one Christine carefully chose? The author of the study said you cannot draw the conclusion that TTF and the AMA "expert" have drawn.
Any counter-argument, Jim?
You asked for a study that showed there was "no choice" about sexual preferences. Now you complain about the date of it and say it provides no data about causation. That's two attempts to change the subject. Typical.
The authors never reported that the same person was aroused at one exposure to a pheromone and then not aroused at a later exposure to the same pheromone, did they? If people can choose this brain arousal to gender specific pheromones then you'd expect to see some variation within some individuals to the same stimuli. None was reported.
I'm glad to see you pointing out the need for replication though as it is one of the foundations of modern science. Maybe a study exposing infants to these pheromones and observing how their PET scans light up will provide more insights about the nature/nurture debate than these studies of adults.
I hope this means you'll contact your federal elected officials and urge them to provide much needed research dollars.
Christine
"No doubt, Anon-inane is an idiot who knows nothing about the scientific method. Very little is 100% anything in the natural world, especially when the quantum world is built up of probabilities. I can't wait for Anon to enlighten us on quantum mechanics some day."
Dana, you involvement on this blog hasn't been personally profitable for you. Once calm and rational, you've now become someone who uses name-calling as a debating tactic.
Quite a bit about the natural world is 100%. The Earth rotates 100% of the time. Smaller bodies are attracted to larger ones 100% of the time.
You and Jim have brainstormed and focused on a side comment. How about the comment I made about the study Christine chose as the best study proving her point? Let's finish that conversation before moving on to a new one.
"As for traditional morality -- again (I'm getting tired of having to say this) -- traditional moral society (ie, Christian society) enforced and encouraged slavery until very recently. It treated women as property until recently. And whether you like it or not, your traditional sexual morality simply is unworkable in modern society where humans do not get married at puberty."
What you fail to understand is that traditional morality protects the weaker members of society. One day, we'll look back and won't believe so many supported this sexual libertine philosophy with its many victims.
"You asked for a study that showed there was "no choice" about sexual preferences. Now you complain about the date of it and say it provides no data about causation. That's two attempts to change the subject. Typical."
The author themself left open the possibility that the response is the result of a past choice made by the individual to engage in the behavior. Nothing in this study would indicate that isn't so.
Ever drink a Martini and then, the next day, have a craving for another one? Could be the same mechanism.
You were referring to my fleeting reference to other studies.
No, I was referring to your inability to understand the one that was cited, or to understand how science works generally.
JimK
"No, I was referring to your inability to understand the one that was cited, or to understand how science works generally."
Well, by all means, elaborate Jim. What didn't I understand?
Nonymous said:
"One day, we'll look back and won't believe so many supported this sexual libertine philosophy with its many victims."
Another idiotic statement without baseless support.
Yes anon let's talk victims of your bigotry. That right now is a bigger scandal with your constant need to view others like gays and lesbians in a lesser light than the one you think shines on you alone.
Well, by all means, elaborate Jim. What didn't I understand?
... causality, inference, the nature of knowledge, empiricism, correlation, the action of paradigms, null-hypothesis testing and significance, peer review, erudition ...
JimK
My comment on this study, Jim. How did it reflect my deficient understanding of science?
"The author themself left open the possibility that the response is the result of a past choice made by the individual to engage in the behavior. Nothing in this study would indicate that isn't so."
Yes, and the authors themselves left open two more "possibilities," right? Two possibilities you apparently don't want to talk about.
Here's a quote by Dr. Lindstroem when discussing this research:
"'We believe that our studies lend more credence to the biological explanation model than to a psychological one when it comes to homosexuality. And this result can also help remove the feeling of guilt that still often accompanies homosexuality,' Lindstroem said in an interview on Swedish public radio."
Christine
Here's the wording of the study:
"Alternatively, it could reflect an acquired sensitization to AND stimuli in the hypothalamus or its centrifugal networks, due to repeated sexual exposure to men (35). A third possibility is that HeW and HoM associated AND with sex, whereas HeM made a similar association with EST."
and here's what I said (yes, megalomaniac that I am, I'm quoting myself again):
"it's possible that homosexuals respond to the scent of male sweat in this way because they made a choice at some point to engage in homosexual activity and now they associate the scent of male sweat with past pleasurable sexual activity."
Where'd I go wrong, Dr. Kennedy?
Interesting quote, Christine. I saw something a little different earlier today when I did a search.
I've got some things to get out at work but I'll try to get back to you extremists later tonight or tomorrow.
Meanwhile, you might want to consider if you want to change the name of your organization to DTF (Deny the Facts, Inc.)
And who are the weaker members of society protected by Christianity these days? African Americans? Women?
You show your ignorance by stating that gravity works 100% of the time so therefore all aspects of the natural world must act 100% or they are not natural. I'm glad you're not a physician, because you'd have been paralyzed into inaction on your first day of medical school.
anonymous said:
"DTF (Deny the Facts, Inc.)"
Well anon you are most familiar with the obvious about yourself on that note.
TTF members and supporters are just not making you happy today or any day..right? Cannot slide your idiotic statements by can you? They catch you and correct you every time.
Bigots like you need to be kept in check.
How did it reflect my deficient understanding of science?
Anon, it takes a lot of years to gain the education in a field necessary to participate intelligently in the conversation of science. Nonparticipants can comment informally and can benefit from findings, but they aren't part of the undertaking.
And here, you show us why that is.
Disrespect for scholarship is one of the hallmarks of the religious right's attempt to march us back to the Dark Ages.
JimK
"And here, you show us why that is."
Where? You're the one that has ignored the words of the study. Informally explain what I don't understand.
"Disrespect for scholarship is one of the hallmarks of the religious right's attempt to march us back to the Dark Ages."
You're the one that misquotes and misinterprets science as part of the wacko liberal left's attempt to return us to the days of paganism. Exploitation is not respect.
The author of the study offered three explanations. You focused on the one the supports your wacko views. You need to respect the scholar's statement that there are more than one explanation for the data.
Post a Comment
<< Home