Leer en Español
SEX EDUCATION for minors has become one of the most polarizing issues between progressives and conservatives. The former argues that comprehensive SexEd by schools is fundamental for the correct insertion of children into society, while the latter consider that it is the families themselves who should provide this type of education to their children, and that the government should not interfere or violate parental rights.
The polarization that sex education is causing can be seen in the image that each side has formed of the political adversary.
The seed that progressive talking points have managed to plant in the collective imagination —using coordinated media and entertainment — is that conservative parents concerned about sex education in schools are backward people who want to keep their children in absolute ignorance about sex.
For the left, what these conservative parents would be achieving is to expose their children to all kinds of STDs due to insufficient “sexual literacy,” in addition to throwing them into the abyss of mental illness, either because they are making their “non-binary” children who do not dare to express their condition to suffer, or because they would be raising unstable and dangerous homophobic, transphobic and intolerant people.
For the right, progressive educational policies would be turning their children into homosexuals or transsexuals by exposing them to early indoctrination in critical gender theories at a stage of their development when they consider them to be especially vulnerable and susceptible.
But no, transgender sex education is not intended to make your child become transgender, although that could happen… it has a more twisted and perverse political goal.
What is behind the progressive effort to promote sex education for minors?
First of all, we are not talking about schools teaching innocent children content about little bees that approach the flower attracted by pollen to get the little seeds to grow, and that parents who object to this are cavemen who want to keep their children in a bubble, insulated from the reality about sexual relations.
The reality is that we find ourselves with educational programs that, in the name of physical and mental health, respect for diversity, inclusion and universal peace, go beyond mere basic sexual education -which could already be considered questionable to be offered at school-, but also indoctrinating with extreme ideas about gender identities and sexual orientations, even promoting, in the most extreme cases, that boys and girls from an early age question their gender and mutilate and sterilize themselves for life.
To top it off, and many times behind parents’ backs, and even with severe punishments for them. Contents that were unthinkable only 5 years ago, now have to be accepted by them without complaint, under penalty of being labeled “domestic terrorists.”
The left’s drive to promote sex education goes beyond confusing kids about their sexuality. In fact, what they want is to confuse education with teaching, in an even broader sense.
In the old days – and by this I mean just a few years ago – we seemed to know that education took place at home, while schools were dedicated to teaching. There was a clear dividing line between government and families, with the latter serving as a counterweight to the power and reach of the former.
What should be clear to those who are suspicious of the use of education as a political tool is that the radical and extremist sex education promoted by the left is not to promote greater health and tolerance, but neither is it limited to the short-term goal of swelling the ranks of minority voters of whom the left has set itself up as the supposed defender.
There is a more devious and Machiavellian hidden long-term objective.
While this type of sex education may influence the susceptible minds of young people, not many will make drastic and irreversible decisions regarding their “gender identity” because, after all, common sense and biology are stubborn and make it so that a majority will not succumb to this coordinated attack.
However, this can have a long-term and large-scale deleterious effect in its second derivative, as it ends up undermining parental and family authority, shifting all power to the government.
When a boy comes home and comments on what his teachers have taught him at school about gender and sex, orientation and identities, and they mention the whole glossary of existing terms covering not only gays and lesbians, but also bisexuals, pansexuals, non-binary, transgender, asexuals, arromantics, demisexuals, agender, graysexuals, lithsexuals, sapiosexuals, skoliosexuals, polysexuals, autosexuals, antrosexuals, pornosexuals, and even, most surprisingly, heterosexuals, their parents will most likely either take it as a joke and admit they have no idea about all this terminology, or be shocked.
It is at that moment when the child in question may think that his or her parents are practically illiterate at best, and depending on how indoctrinated they have been, they may consider them to be narrow-minded bigots, or even homophobic, transphobic, or who knows what.
Thus, parental authority is undermined and children may begin to lose respect for their parents, questioning their preparation and even their good intentions, their loyalties and admiration now becoming centered on their very intelligent teacher, be it a him, a her or a them, at school, who knows so many technicalities, and who demonstrates an open mind to knowledge and tolerance without limits.
This is the most dangerous of the social consequences of sex education promoted by progressivism, because while the first derivative may involve an earthquake in the lives of the still relatively few families affected, the erosion of traditional family dynamics may involve in the medium and long term the destruction of the social fabric and freedoms, as families lose the respect of their children, who become at the mercy of the government of the day.
Having all this in mind, children, whether or not they suffer from this supposed gender dysphoria, lose their parents as the referents of their education, leaving it in the hands of the politicians who manage the school system, and families lose their role as the first and last line of defense against the omnipotent power of the government.
Ignacio Manuel García Medina, Business Management teacher. Artist and lecturer specialized in Popular Culture for various platforms. Presenter of the program "Pop Libertario" for the Juan de Mariana Institute. Lives in the Canary Islands, Spain // Ignacio M. García Medina es profesor de Gestión de Empresas. Es miembro del Instituto Juan de Mariana y conferenciante especializado en Cultura Popular e ideas de la Libertad.
Social Networks: @ignaciomgm