You're Teaching Our Children What?

Left falls into Queer extremists’ trap with Safe Schools program

Safe schools do not advise children how to access a sex shop site online. They do not teach children that virginity is a subjective concept. They do not instruct children to imagine they have no genitals — arguably a form of dissociation.

Yet the Safe Schools Coalition “All of Us” program, defended by Queer activist groups and the Left media, continues to receive government funding while promoting highly questionable sexual activism on the curriculum.

On Monday night’s Q&A, Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton argued against the Safe Schools Coalition program in response to a question by Cella White, a mother who withdrew her children from Frankston High School because of it. He attempted to evince his position by exposing radical elements of the program, but the audience looked bemused, as though it were a fiction. What they failed to grasp is the critical distinction between Queer, a term used as shorthand for the gay community and Queer politics, a radical movement that marked the rise of neo-Marxism in the realm of sexuality.

Consistent with neo-Marxist minority politics, the Safe Schools Coalition program has been funded on the rationale of victimhood. Ostensibly a program to counter bullying of youth who identify as lesbian, gay, intersex or transgender, it has been accepted in schools across Victoria with federal and Labor state government funding. But the program is not simply a defence of lesbian and gay youth, basic respect, or human equality. Its co-founder Roz Ward has admitted it is part of a Marxist social change strategy. We should be worried about the change to come, given program resources include practices associated with Queer politics such as sex industry shops, chest-binding and penis-tucking.

Queer politics was kept at the margins of gay and lesbian life until recently because many consider it so extreme. It emerged as the successor to the more moderate politics of gay liberation. Like their fellow travellers in the women’s liberation and civil rights movements, gay liberationists sought formal equality, the recognition that all citizens are equal before the law. However, once the basic equality agenda was achieved, it was superseded by the Queer movement, whose activist core ­demanded recognition for sexual libertarian practices commonly considered harmful and exploitative.

Critic of Queer politics, former professor of political science Sheila Jeffreys, said the new politics differed from liberalism by advocating “the belief that sexual ­minorities are at the forefront of creating the sexual revolution”.

At the infamous 1982 Barnard conference, leading Queer theorist Gayle Rubin made clear just how extreme the new sexual minority revolution would be. She said: “Like communists and ­homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatised that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties … in 20 years or so, when the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt.” Defence of child sexualisation and sex abuse formed a part of the Queer revolution.

Queer politics has been criticised from within by gay liberals, conservatives and lesbian feminists who recognise its sexual excesses as profoundly harmful. The emergence of HIV/AIDS provided the movement with impetus and funding, as well as powerful detractors.

For example, liberal AIDS activist Gabriel Rotello and the late gay journalist Randy Shilts warned that in the context of HIV/AIDS, sexual libertarianism posed a significant private and public health risk. Instead, they invoked the liberal no harm principle, arguing for behavioural change via safe sex practice until the risk had passed. Shilts and ­Rotello have little in common with conservative Christian senator Cory Bernardi, but like him, they were roundly denounced as ­homophobic — for dissenting from Queer political correctness — a charge which loses much of its potency when directed at gay men.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten fell into the lazy habit of the unthinking Left by accusing Bernardi of homophobia for opposing the Safe Schools Coalition program. Labor Premier Daniel Andrews labelled Liberals who oppose the program “extreme”, saying: “I don’t think these extreme Liberals are actually offended by the … program … they’re offended by the kids who need it.” The modern Left appears demonstrably incapable of advancing a political position without using children as its front line of defence.

The Left’s provincial understanding of sexual politics precludes appreciation of the diversity that exists within it. And many Queer theorists conveniently revise history to conceal opinions that dissent from their own — especially dissension from within lesbian and gay communities. There exists, for example, strong opposition to transgender activism among lesbian and feminist groups, as well as transsexual people who regret having surgery.

Both Jeffreys and Germaine Greer have been attacked for their public criticism of it.

Students and activists attempted to ban Greer speaking at Cardiff University last year, launching a vicious campaign against her. She did not capitulate. But Queer activists continue to shut down critical discussion by labelling opponents any shade of “phobia”, even while sex change regret is reported by people who have had transgender surgery or hormone treatments and wish to “detransition”.

European research suggests up to one fifth of people regret having sex change surgery and it does little to reduce long-term depression rates. Why is such research not included in the All of Us program in the interests of factual accuracy, balance and harm mitigation?

The debate on the Safe Schools Coalition program is destructive not only to children, but to the gay community at large whose political diversity has been erased by ­activists keen to frame the issue as a battle between conservative hetero­sexuals and progressive ­homosexuals.

In reality, the debate is between those who support the right to childhood and children’s bodily dignity, the right to an education that educates, not indoctrinates, versus those who believe Marxist activism constitutes sound school curriculum.

The wealth of intellectual and political diversity among lesbian, gay and bisexual people is lost in the push to make Queer politics the public face of gay life.

Schoolchildren exposed to PC lessons in Queer politics are being robbed of a far finer legacy in the literary and artistic tradition of geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Oscar Wilde and the Bloomsbury Group.

How much greater students’ measure of human diversity would be if schools replaced politically correct programming with that apposite hilarity of Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, or the soaring verse of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. The best of ­humanity lies in its genius. Schools should rid the curriculum of oppressively mediocre activism and return to teaching greatness.


Share Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Follow us Facebooktwitter