Our District’s Myopic Approach To The Issue of Identity May Be Creating More Harm Than Good
John Leo Jr
Trying to branch out, ground myself, or feel a little relief again, I found an interview with a UMASS professor (below) attempting to unravel what is happening at the public schools.
The summary of the interview is this: fringe right parents have identified the public school as the most effective battleground to which they bring forth their fodder: engaging their far-right ideologies about anti-government and other leftist ideologies.
Absorbing all this, I can’t help but ask a question never expressed in their unchallenged position: is the feeling mutual?
Is the “fringe right”, which they say is now mainstream, initiating this war on schools or acting in response? What is being weaponized by fringe right parents to engage the left at BOEs? Or is the left weaponizing something where the right is playing defense?
It’s fair to ask the questions. I was intrigued by the title suggesting parents still have rights, but as they so unwittingly reveal in their discussion, it depends on the parent’s political position.
I do believe in human progress: ergo, the fundamental idea of the “progressive.” I do still maintain that the past can teach us about the future and that conservatism has its value but that we should be providing for creativity, new ideas and challenging even the foundations of a society that worked for us for so long but does have its setbacks.
But we’re not. Schools are not.
Just on the topic of identity itself, schools are attempting to introduce only the concept of gender identity to ages as low as eight and call it part of sex education based on the latest BHPS curriculum. NJ ESSA emergency funds appeared to support this particular curriculum, alluding that funds would be more easily available if schools implemented their sex education involving the new gender identity criteria. This is one example suggesting that there are forces acting on our schools that constituents may not understand.
What the schools, curricula and leadership completely fail to do for our kids is advise them that identity is not limited to sex or gender. In fact it’s doing the disservice of elaborating on only one element of individual growth so important to our children. It is such a complex a journey that most adults don’t have a complete identity until their midlife likely struggling because we’re losing those resources that help us find our place in the world. We’ve codified that singular aspect of identity- completely omitting a broad and complex aspect of self-reflection during adolescence- and completely ignoring the many important facets of personal growth.
Why is there no curriculum for how one might decide how they intend to fit in this world? What kind of work is right for me? How will I remain happy in it? What social roles will I play in my community? In society? What kind of relationship do I want with other people? Or how do I empower myself to bravely and adequately contend with my identity as a personally fulfilling journey for the rest of my life?
Most of us probably don’t have a complete idea of self identity until in our late 20s because young adults brought into such a complex society have such a remarkable personal “hazing” (mostly while at school) as we contend with who we are while constantly trying to “fit in,” normalize, find our friends or determine what we want in life.
Few of us feel we have a true identity at all through adolescence. Hence, it is incredibly irresponsible to highlight, promote and engage a singular aspect, particularly when a student is impressionable and the ramifications (such as sex change) so massive.
We had something once that helped many lost adolescents with identity crisis. It was called having a faith. But in our lack of wisdom we’ve dispensed with it to replace it with an incomplete notion of one’s relationship with the world.
So what is gender dysphoria? The “psychological anguish due to incongruence between an individual’s gender assigned at birth and perceived gender identity.”
But there is a pesky and subjective word in this definition. “Perceived.” This study is highly dependent on perception- a fallible data point yet so predominant in our society as a baseline for anything we attempt to understand.
So I don’t question the data derived but instead the entire premise because perception, as valuable it is to the individual as the compass to their belief system, it’s a terrible guide for the aggregate.
But what is science, we ask? Is it resting our laurels on a study that supports our position or the ability to call into question its validity?
I’ll instead propose a personal anecdote because sometimes you need to assess things on your own instead of, well… hear what someone is trying to sell you.
As one of my children in his lovable and curious nature, seems to be the perfect target (and age now) for this indoctrination, I have to question how to handle it as a parent. Do I ignore or suppress the particular indicators I’ve been “told” by the mainstream to recognize? I have to give credit where it’s due and say that this was likely not a great solution in the past as many parents before me would tell you their child comes out later in life but -with aloof or unsupportive families- along with it comes all the mental baggage like resentment.
But children can only build context for what they know. And only in a very limited way. The public schools, in their lack of wisdom, are placing complex, adult contexts on children that – and this is admittedly a repeated idea- still believe in Santa Claus.
We might as well teach them the tax code at the age of ten. Or string theory at nine. They’re smart. They should understand that, right?
So I go back to what I’ve decided about identity at its most basic definition: an individual sense of self, and a need to be unique in a world of commonality.
What if, for instance, I taught my son to instead recognize how similar he is to others? Whether that trait be wrapped up in gender dysphoria or any other trait he holds dear. If he developed his relationships in life that are based on commonality instead of the need to be unique, those relationships might be more meaningful. In fact, many psychological interventions (Dialectical Behavior Therapy as an example) that seek to help people for friendships and good relationships advise looking for others with similar interests and world views.
How’s that for an identity trait? Because if I ran the world (smirk), I’d develop a curriculum that empowered children to explore identity in their way- not limiting it to someone else’s definition of it.
Because if you argue that we are improving mental health by providing an educational foundation and safety net for adolescents with gender dysphoria, you’d be wrong.
LGBTQ identified individuals are four times more likely to incur medically serious attempts at suicide. 41% of trans adults attempted suicide.
It’s not pretty, and it’s a struggle indeed.
School BOEs and superintendents are pushing these policies with no care or thought as to the consequences. If they understood our country’s founding principles (those pesky worthless things the angry fringe right live and die by), they would recall that our society’s power is derived from the value of the individual. That’s a relatively unique sovereign stance. And that if we just taught these beliefs, perhaps in a modern context, there would be no need to indoctrinate into something so divisive and dangerous yet still provide for the empowerment of individualism.
So I find it difficult to believe that conservatives suddenly unleashed the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or even George Orwell into our classrooms to start warring on the left.