For decades, critical legal studies have argued that gender is a construct of society, rather than a quality that is linked to biological fact. Curriculum that denies gender differences and seeks to level those distinctions particularly regarding sexuality is actually destructive to families.
When that factual denial begins at a young age in educational material, the results may be more complicated than a society may be prepared for. A study by Dr. Trayce Hansen, a California psychologist, reveals that curriculum dramatically affects how students shape their own decisions, and thus their lives. For a full overview of this work check out the article below, posted by the Ruth Institute.
Impact of Proposed School Curriculum Addressing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
by Dr. Trayce Hansen, Psychologist and Ruth Advisory Board Member
In May 2009, the Alameda Unified School Board was considering the adoption of a new curriculum for K-12 that would promote acceptance and normalization of homosexual and transgender behaviors under the guise of anti-bullying. A group of concerned parents asked me to review and comment on the proposed curriculum and its impact on children. Despite the evidence of potential harm, and over the strong objections of many parents, the board adopted the proposed curriculum.
Environment is primary factor in development of sexual preference and gender identity
Decades of research confirm that sexual orientation and gender identity are not inborn but are primarily shaped by environmental influences during childhood and adolescence. The proposed school curriculum will affect the sexual preference and gender identity formation of some children exposed to it because it teaches that all sexual and gender variations are equally acceptable. Sexual preference and gender identity formation are fragile developmental processes that can be disrupted and altered by environmental influences such as the lessons in the proposed school curriculum.
Sexual Orientation is not inborn
Many people continue to believe that sexual orientation is inborn, although that is not true. Extensive, worldwide research reveals that homosexuality is predominately influenced by environmental factors. For instance, recent large-scale studies compared rates of homosexual behavior in sets of identical twins. If homosexual behavior were inborn, every time one identical twin was homosexual, the other identical twin would also be homosexual 100% of the time. But this is not what the research revealed. Rather, every time one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time. Homosexual behavior is clearly not genetic.
In fact, an accumulation of extensive research utilizing millions of research subjects finds that environment, not genetics, is the main factor in the development of non-heterosexual behavior. (To review these research studies see references 1-4 listed below).
Societies which endorse non-heterosexual behavior elicit more of that behavior
For a well-known example of the environmental effect on sexual behavior, consider ancient Greece and Rome where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because men in those societies were born with a “gay gene,” but because human sexual behavior is malleable and culturally influenced.
Research reveals that the more an environment (including the school environment) affirms, endorses, or normalizes homosexual or bisexual behavior the more of those behaviors there will be in that environment. The proposed curriculum would teach children that it doesn’t matter with whom one has a romantic or sexual relationship. Such a lesson will lead some children to engage in homosexual relationships they might never have considered were it not for the school’s social endorsement. In fact, we’re already seeing a general increase in non-heterosexual behavior as a result of the media’s affirmation.
Non-heterosexual behavior leads to increased risk of psychological and physical disorders
Sadly, the research is also clear that individuals who adopt non-heterosexual lifestyles are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened lifespan. Schools should not affirm and thereby encourage young people to adopt lifestyles more likely to lead to such devastation.
Gender Identity Disorder is a psychiatric disorder that should not be normalized to children
The proposed school curriculum also teaches that transgendered lifestyles are a healthy and acceptable alternative to the norm. That is not true. Many transgendered individuals suffer from a psychiatric disorder known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID) that is recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder in need of psychological treatment. The proposed curriculum encourages transgendered behavior by teaching, for instance, that males who dress, behave, and live as females are completely normal....
Read the rest of this article here .
There have been many studies that show that where genetics has little to no proven influence on homosexual behavior; various factors in the social environment have a proven effect.
ReplyDeleteOne such study was performed in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. There were a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability that an individual will practice a homosexual lifestyle.
For the Danish men, environmental factors that influence their homosexual marriage included an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. The more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.
For Danish women, the environmental factors that influenced the tendency towards a homosexual lifestyle included an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.
The directors of the study note that this evidence of familial and environmental influences correlates with what many psychologists and physicians have known for years. You cannot force people into accepting homosexuality instead of simply tolerating it, so as to ensure that homosexuals were not unduly harassed by people uncomfortable with their increasing prominence in society and open recruitment of people into that form of behavior.
The long record of human history shows conclusively that homosexuality goes in and out of style.
Another place that homosexuality is more encouraged, and thus more accepted, and more practiced, is in the educational strata. With more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university men and women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle.
It seems that social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. It is not surprising then that the US has become increasingly open to the homosexual lifestyle. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage. And if we legalize same sex marriage, this will result in more people choosing to life a homosexual lifestyle.
"Schools should not affirm and thereby encourage young people to adopt lifestyles more likely to lead to such devastation." As a Christian woman who has worked in a public school and with school children, I would have to agree with this statement. Even in a very liberal and fast-changing society that is becoming more and more accepting of the gay community-I'm not sure that anyone truly would choose to identify with something that sadly and often makes them a social target. I'm not sure that I would go to the extent of calling it a "devastation" however. However, the author makes a valid point in saying that by schools affirming and encouraging a homosexual lifestyle, it will become more prevalent and considered to be just another choice, another way of being, and it will move further from the idea of being "other."
ReplyDelete