“Fluid” gender theory scrapped in NSW schools
Anne Lim, Eternity News, 9 February 2017
The Australian Christian Lobby has welcomed a report that NSW school teachers have been banned from teaching gender theory in NSW public schools.
The Australian today reported that the ban followed an independent review by professor Bill Louden into the state’s sex and health education resources.
It said an update on the review has been provided to teachers, listing which resources were not to be used.
ACL’s NSW State Director Mark Makowiecki said many parents and teachers are grateful that children will no longer be taught harmful theories that gender is a “social construct” or that sexuality is “non-binary”, occurring on a continuum and “constantly changing.
The review was initiated last September after it was discovered the NSW Department of Education and Training had developed a resource called the Teacher Toolbox, which appeared to be material repackaged from the controversial Safe Schools Coalition programme.
The department’s website also revealed that elements in Crossroads – the state’s compulsory sex education programme for Years 11 and 12 – were imbued with gender and queer theory.
After examining the scientific merit of the research underpinning the materials, the review appeared to have made a negative assessment, Makowiecki said.
Makowiecki today joined Labor MP Greg Donnelly in calling for the new state Education Minister Rob Stokes to release the review in full.
“The ACL and many parents and teachers are grateful for this decision. It is necessary, however, to make the final report public because scrutiny is warranted,” Makowiecki said.
“I applaud the decision and welcome the spotlight on the research of La Trobe University’s Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS), which was also behind the so-called Safe Schools programme, which teaches children that their gender is fluid.
“There is more to do, with elements of queer theory remaining, but without doubt the decision to scrutinise the scientific basis for these ideas has been a step in the right direction.”
Makowiecki said parents have a right to know who was responsible for pushing this radical sexual agenda in the department and whether any disciplinary action will be taken.
Eternity has contacted the department and is waiting for comment on the story.
No Gender December: When did ‘gender’ become such a dirty word?
Miranda Devine, Daily Telegraph, 14 December 2016
Welcome to No Gender December, an annual Christmas campaign championed by the Greens to stop parents from buying their children toys that perpetrate “gender stereotypes”.
This year’s crackpot theme is “Buy a boy a Barbie” — whether he wants it or not. He may want a big yellow Tonka truck but in this brave new world of gender totalitarianism, he has to have a doll.
What would Santa say?
Gender ideology’s encroachment on Christmas coincides with a push by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to set gender quotas to coerce more men into female-dominated “caring professions” such as nursing and teaching. This Orwellian-sounding agency, funded by the federal government to the tune of $6.3 million a year, now wants men to take jobs from women, under the guise of gender equity.
Director Libby Lyons said last week she wants to smash the “industrial and occupational segregation’’ in teaching and nursing”.
“Set a target,’’ she told The Saturday Telegraph. “That’s how you get cultural change.’’
But why do we need “cultural change”? Why not just let men and women choose the jobs that suit them? While we need more male teachers in our schools, a quota from a government agency is the last way to achieve the goal.
And why not let children play with toys that interest them?
Why must society be reorganised to suit gender theorists and their neo-Marxist view of a genderless world?
The truth is that feminism has been perverted away from being about true equality of opportunity for both sexes into a social engineering experiment that turns biology on its head.
The problem for this ideology is males and females are inherently, biologically different, as shown by every credible study, and by every culture ever to have existed on our planet. Yet, to voice such an obvious observation, known to be true by every parent who hasn’t been brainwashed, is to be guilty of a new thought-crime: “Neurosexism”.
Make no mistake: that which may seem like a benign social trend towards more gender fluidity is actually a feminist revolution towards a world in which any difference between males and females must be eliminated.
Europe is way ahead of us, with No Gender December running all year in one Berlin district, where laws prohibit billboard ads depicting girls in pink “with dolls” or boys in blue playing “with technical toys”. And women “smiling” is an absolute no-no.
In Sweden, where a new gender-neutral pronoun “hen” has formally replaced he and she (han and hon), schools are banned from gender stereotyping. Thus, in Stockholm, a government-funded gender-free preschool named Egalia (George Orwell, eat your heart out) forbids teachers from using terms such as “boys” and “girls”, only “friends”.
Children’s choice of toys is monitored and guided, and Cinderella and Snow White have been replaced by “tales of two male giraffes who parent abandoned crocodile eggs”.
As Christina Hoff Sommers, author of The War Against Boys, puts it: “Swedish parents, teachers and authorities are going to have to police, incessantly, boys’ attraction to large-group rough-and-tumble play and girls’ affinity for intimate theatrical play.”
The end goal is to eliminate gender so that genital and chromosomal differences between the sexes somehow disappear.
Libertarian magazine The Federalist reports feminist theorists use Marxist language to claim “The elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and seizure of the control of reproduction.”
This theory holds “the heart of women’s oppression is in child-bearing and child-rearing roles.”
The only women who are listened to when it comes to feminist issues are gender theory academics such as Roz Ward and chattering classes types. The problem is they are wildly unrepresentative of the real lives of most women. Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway got a taste of that last week when she explained why she decided not to accept a top White House job. The first woman ever to run a winning US presidential campaign, Conway, 49, said she turned down the role of White House Press Secretary because it would be impossible to do the job and also be a mother to four children under 12.
Describing conversations with male colleagues, Conway told a “Women Rule” event in Washington DC: “I do politely mention to them the question isn’t would you take the job. The question is would you want your wife to? Would you want the mother of children to? I think the lesson is (with) all the opportunities out there for women… that we still have to make choices, there are limits.”
The CEO of her own polling company is hardly a shrinking violet chained to a kitchen sink, but Conway is being attacked for her candour, with one commentator claiming “Kellyanne Conway Suggests Women with Kids Shouldn’t Take Jobs in the White House”. That’s not what she said. She wants to do what she believes is best for her family. That’s her choice. That’s life. That’s reality. You can’t change it any more than you can turn boys into girls by giving them Barbies.