About a week ago, I posted about the Australian Christian Lobby's efforts to ensure that schools are a dangerous place for LGBT students.
I did a little research, and unsurprisingly, their campaign is based on outright lies and fabrications.
First, I'll begin with how the program works.
The federal program is modeled on the program that was begun in my home state of Victoria. Schools can choose to participate in the program, and by doing so, they are "committing to building a school that is free from homophobic and transphobic bullying, that’s safe and inclusive for all students and staff." Schools that participate in the program receive "professional development for staff, resources and advice and support for schools to help build connective and supportive spaces for students now and in the future."
Specifically, the program provides the following things (a short summary):
- Presentations, training and workshops.
- Surveys for staff and students to allow the schools to learn what needs to be done.
- Consultation and advice.
- Resources for staff to help combat homophobia and transphobia.
- Resources for students to change their schools, such as by forming GSAs.
Now onto the claims made through the literature that the ACL is spreading. These claims are made by a letter by anti-LGBT group Family Voice Australia and a booklet made by anti-LGBT group National Civic Council.
1. Bullying based on sexual orientation is not a problem.
The letter makes the claim that "sexual orientation does not even rate among the top seven causes of bullying." (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 4) This claim is obviously trying to advance the argument that bullying based on sexual orientation is not a problem. This claim is based on an entirely irrelevant study of causes of bullying in Toronto, which cannot be at all assumed to be somehow representative or indicative of Australia.
As I have already posted, this is the reality:
- 66% of LGBT youth have experienced verbal abuse because of their sexuality.
- 18% have experienced physical violence.
- 16% have attempted suicide.
- 33% have self-harmed.
- 42% have contemplated either suicide or self-harm.
This is what these groups want to ignore.
2. The program contains controversial content.
The literature claims that there is material used in the program that is controversial. Some things that they object to do have a place, but a small and irrelevant place in the program (as I'll explain later on), but much of what they object to does not.
We see this in the booklet put together by the National Civic Council. Page 3 of the booklet has some details about Minus 18, an Australian LGBT youth charity. The page speaks of "controversial content in the program", and includes the following as such:
Minus18 Website & Facebook Page⁶ (A provider of resources)
“Cover your Tracks” article gives step by step instructions on how to delete your online site history for “private browsing” ("Cover your Tracks" article on website)
“How to bind your chest” article for girls who want to present as male - showing how to bind “safely” but to go to the doctor or hospital if having difficulty breathing and in
extreme pain. Suggests to take a break from binding by staying home for a day or wearing layered shirts. (“7 Ways to Bind your Chest” article)
Encourages students to make friends on their own members online chat line and to meet up with their new friends.
Genitals does not equal Gender (contained in “Pronouns” video on website and Facebook)
Encourages contacting Minus 18's own resident “Sexpert” - for any “burning sexual health question” and answer “YOUR sexy questions” (Facebook and Vimeo)⁷
Games promoted such as “name 3 people in the order that you would like to “F***, marry and kill” (Facebook and Youtube)⁸
“National Chaplaincy is a Bad Move” (Article on Website, Facebook and Youtube)
(National Civic Council booklet, Page 3)
In this instance, the devil is not in the details, but the headline. This is from Minus 18's website and Facebook page. This has nothing to do with the program.
3. The program forces a sexual agenda on children.
The literature claims that the program is a "radical sexual agenda pushed on Aussie kids" (National Civic Council booklet, Page 1) that "inappropriately sexualises the classroom" (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 7) and is "dangerous" (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 13) and "social engineering" (National Civic Council booklet, Page 1) To support this argument, they include these statements that are from the resources in the program:
"You have two virginities – one for the first time with a boy and
one for the first time with a girl" (from Page 10 of the SSCA resource "OMG I'm Queer")
"Allow students to access a unisex toilet or the toilet of their choice." (from Page 7 of the SSCA resource "Gender Is Not Uniform")
"Penis-in-vagina sex is not the only sex and certainly not the ultimate sex” (from Page 10 of the SSCA resource "OMG I'm Queer")
(National Civic Council booklet, Page 1)
"Provide students the option of wearing any part of your school uniform regardless of gender.” (from Page 8 of the SSCA resource "Gender Is Not Uniform")
Your “sex is your physical aspects (wibbly wobbly bits) and gender is how you feel in your mind” (from Page 7 of the SSCA resource "OMG I'm Queer" and from Page 9 of the SSCA resource "OMG My Friend's Queer")
“Sexuality is fluid, and changes over time: sometimes liking guys more, sometimes liking girls more. Looking at sexuality as something that's fluid and always changing is
pretty cool”. (from Page 7 of the SSCA resource "OMG I'm Queer")
“Sex can be pretty damn fun! I honestly don't know why they don't tell you this at school”. (from Page 10 of the SSCA resource "OMG I'm Queer")
Same article starting with the above statement talks about knowing when it is the right time to “Do It” - giving no minimum age (from Page 10 of the SSCA resource "OMG I'm Queer")
“Some people have surgery to alter how they express their gender, some people have hormone treatment. Some people legally change what's written on their birth certificate”. (from Page 9 of the SSCA resource "OMG My Friend's Queer")
“Make sure all students continue to learn about, and are given opportunities to discuss, transgender and gender diverse issues.” (from Page 7 of the SSCA resource "Gender Is Not Uniform")
(National Civic Council booklet, Page 3)
Now let the SSCA explain how these resources are used:
Resources for school staff
We have a range of free, high quality resources which help school staff to respond to homophobia and transphobia and actively support and celebrate gender and sexual diversity in schools.
The program gives the resources to the staff, not the students. The students are not required by the program to see anything in them. This is the "small and irrelevant place in the program" that I was talking about before. (Not that it's controversial anyway.)
4. The program encourages homosexuality and cross-dressing.
The literature distributed by the ACL makes the claims that "the program is thinly disguised propaganda to normalise homosexual behaviour and cross dressing" (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 7) and that "the primary focus of the program is normalising certain sexual practices." (National Civic Council booklet, Page 1) To make this point, the material in false claim 3 (immediately above) is cited again.
But if you actually read the resources, you'll see that "OMG I'm Queer" and "OMG My Friend's Queer" consist of little more than definitions and interviews with same-sex attracted, gender diverse and intersex youth, and that "Gender Is Not Uniform" consists of recommendations about how schools should act regarding gender issues.
The statements in these resources are not going to be advocated or even presented. As I said earlier, schools do not distribute these resources to students. And you'd be hard-pressed to find anything more than what has already been pointed out.
One other piece of evidence is offered for this claim is a statement in the letter that reads "[i]n Victoria, where the program was first developed with funding from the previous Labor government, some high school students were told that they can find out if they are “gay” by “trying it”." (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 9) About this statement:
1. There is no statement as to who allegedly said this. No evidence is offered that it came from the program.
2. It is uncorroborated, and comes from the testimony of one person.
3. It is out of context. We don't know if the next words were "but I'm not saying do that."
4. It's a claim of fact. This statement is not advocacy of any sexual activity. It's just saying what the truth is. It's like saying "you can test a substance for the presence of oxygen by seeing if it burns." That's not encouraging burning anything. It's just pointing out a fact. (I'm not entirely sure if it is true, but if it is, I have absolutely no problem with it.)
5. Even the letter's allegation is true, and even if it is somehow a problem, it's isolated. It's one claim. There's no evidence that it's widespread and entrenched in the program.
6. Even if it is true, and even if it is somehow a problem, you don't need to stop the whole program. You just need to tell teachers or someone who makes a presentation to not say that.
5. The program could lead to sexual harassment.
The letter makes the claim that "[e]ncouraging confused boys to use girls’ toilets and change rooms (and vice versa) is inappropriate and could lead to problems with sexual harrassment [sic]." (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 7) Media Matters has debunked this claim thoroughly.
6. The program encourages the use of rigid labels.
The letter claims that the program is "encouraging students to "come out as gay, lesbian or transgender". (Family Voice Australia letter, Page 1, Paragraph 7) Firstly, no evidence is offered for this. Secondly, the impugned resources, "OMG I'm Queer" and "OMG My Friend's Queer" use the non-rigid terms "same-sex attracted" and "gender diverse", and the latter describes the term same-sex attracted as "a much better way to describe people who are not straight." (OMG My Friend's Queer, Page 6)
So, to summarize:
It is claimed that bullying based on sexual orientation is not a problem. In reality, it is.
It is claimed that the content in the program is controversial. In reality, much of the content labelled "controversial" belongs to websites of groups that participate in the program, and has no role in the program itself.
It is claimed that the program pushes an agenda on children. In reality, the program does not have schools distribute the challenged material to children.
It is claimed that the program aims to encourage homosexuality and being transgender. In reality, the stated functions of the program include no such aim, and the evidence to support this claim is nothing more (with one irrelevant exception) than anecdotal statements in the program's literary material from same-sex attracted, gender diverse and intersex youth, and the statements will not be advocated or even presented.
It is claimed that the program will lead to sexual harassment. In reality, it won't.
It is claimed that the program encourages the use of rigid labels when they shouldn't be used. In reality, the impugned resources encourage the opposite.
Methinks someone needs to read the Ninth Commandment.