Safe Schools Program Is A Problem In A Similar Way To Religious Instruction. Here’s Why….
What are your thoughts on the Safe Schools Program?
Is the safe schools program a necessity or is it strategic social engineering?
Check out my video response below:
The Old Simo YouTube library here
My primary school provided students with Christian religious instruction. Back in the 90s it was common for non religious government schools to do so. Children of atheist, Judaic and Hindu parents were removed from those classes.
It was not a neutral historical program. The Christian guest teachers promoted Christianity as the ideal religion. They had a clear agenda. It was indoctrination.
This is why the safe schools program is a problem. It uses similar methods to indoctrinate people into its often problematic agenda. There is validity to its ideology. Knowledge, tolerance, and acceptance of the LGBTI community is important.
However, there are parts of it that are clearly a form of social engineering and LGBTI propaganda. My previous religious instruction used faith to justify itself. Safe schools program uses social justice as a veil. The social justice veil is a great cover to conceal why the safe schools program is a problem.
I have spent time researching and speaking with the Safe Schools Coalition Australia. I’ve researched its All of Us coursework, which you can look into by clicking here. I will be referring to lessons from this unit guide and basing my discussion around it. My conclusion is that the safe schools program is a problem.
The Coalition is a network or organization that works with schools in order to create inclusive and safe environments for same sex attracted, gender diverse and intersex pupils, family and staff. It aims to reduce the discriminatory behavior that transgender and same sex attracted students face.
Safe Schools Coalition is government funded. It has 307 member schools. One common misconception is that the Safe Schools Coalition sets the course work for teachers to teach in class. This is not the case. They provide a unit guide and lessons (All of Us: Understanding Gender Diversity, Sexual Diversity and Intersex Topics for Years 7 and 8).
Schools/teachers are completely free to elect lesson options. Parents are also required to provide consent for their children to participate in these classes. Year 7 to 8 students would range from the ages of 12-14. I was glad to discover these facts.
However, this does not mean that aren’t problems with its overall structure or the suggested lessons. Hence, safe schools pogram is a problem.
It’s often promoted and spoken about as an anti bullying program. This is not the case. It’s a program specifically catering to the LGBTI community. This is only a portion of the population of the class room. Logically, the program is exclusionary. It does not encompass everyone. Ironically, its called “All of Us“. It only considers issues of LGBTI students, effectively shutting others out from being a core focus. This might not be an issue if there is a concurrent program in operation that includes everyone and aims to reduce bullying and discrimination in general. However, if there isn’t the Safe Schools lessons effectively turn non LGBTI pupils into mere caterers as opposed to making them a core focus of concern as well.
Some of the statistics reported in the guide are highly suspicious. They claim international research (for an Australian based program) for three different set of stats . Lesson 6 states that 1 in 10 people are same sex attracted. (AU source). That’s believable.
1 in 25 people are transgender or “gender diverse” (US source). Putting aside the illegitimacy of “gender diversity” those stats for transgender seem remarkably high. Williams Institute in the US estimates that 0.3% of adults are transgender.
It also claims around 1 in 60 people are born with intersex bodies (4%). That statement alone seems absurd. The Organization of Intersex International Australia recommends a figure of 1.7% which would equate to 1 in 2000 births. It’s very difficult to get data on intersex but the 4% figure cannot be verified according to the Queensland Professor who stated it.
Gender Diversity, Gender Neutral Pronouns, and Language Control
Safe Schools Program is a problem especially when it comes to claims of gender diversity. It legitimizes this current fashion fad gender neutral movement. Male and female are the only two legitimate gender/ gender identity options. Legitimate transgender people wish to be addressed as either he or she.
Unfortunately, the transgender movement has been hijacked by the gender neutral pronoun movement. It is simply political and social agitation that tries to infiltrate a plethora of gender neutral pronouns (such as “they”, “zweg” and “zhir”) and gender diverse options (such as gender queer, gender fluid, coercively assigned male at birth).
These pronouns and gender diverse options are recently constructed as part of the frenzied gender and identity political movement. They are then handpicked by bored ,narcissistic,and self indulgent Western people. These people either looking for a source of amusement or are trying to assign themselves some sort of alternative identity.
I have no issue with a person calling themselves whatever they want. However, it is unacceptable for that person or campaigners to expect every day language to be altered in order to accommodate their self indulgence. They claim its should be done so due to tolerance. However, it is all emotional. It’s advocated simply because makes them feel good. This whole movement languishes in the pits of illogical, emotive and irrational thought.
All of Us encourages changing every day language to fit this agenda. Its glossary states that gendered phrases and language like “boys and girls” should be avoided in case someone does not identify as either. It states that one should not make assumptions about someone’s gender identity. They should respect and use whatever pronouns they wish to be addressed by. Lesson 4 and 6 also perpetuates this type of language control and legitimization of illegitimate gender options.
LACK OF CRITICAL THOUGHT
LGBTI individuals have faced many challenges and forms of discrimination. However, All of Us paints a one dimensional vision of the LGBTI community. It assigns itself a victim prsim. Hence, the victim hood fetish running throughout its lessons. Its references to “heteronormativity” in lesson 6 implies a standard of belief. The heterosexual world is eternal villainy while the LGBTI world is a consummate victim. Neither groups parametres are so rigid. Hence, the overall sub text which implies that the LGBTI community and its members can do no wrong.
Lesson 6 trains children on how to be good LGBTI allies. There are some very good suggestions. However, the whole template lacks any option for critical thought. You must respect and use whatever gender pronoun a person wants to be addressed by. If you don’t you are not a good ally. Therefore, you are a homophobe or a bigot.
The whole course work does not welcome any challenge or critical thought regarding the LGBTI community. I’m in favour of holding all groups to the same standard. No group is flawless and very few groups are complete victims.
Regardless of questions encouraged at the end of a lesson, its message is clear. It’s process and procedure is similar to religious instruction “This is the truth, Accept! Accept ! Accept!” You can ask questions but you can’t really question anything. Surely, its clear to any logical and rational mind that the safe schools program is a problem.
I would not give permission for my child to attend lessons that encompassed the above outlined points. At a year 7 and 8 level, I would be in favour of a program that truly includes everyone with the following:
-General anti bullying and anti discrimination lessons.
-Safe Sex including contraceptive methods.
-Education on STIs.
-General health and well being.
-An exploration of sexuality, gender dysphoria, and Transgender.