Ontario’s sex ed puts kids in danger - but you won’t hear that from mainstream media
A few weeks
ago, at the invitation of several parent organizations, I traveled from New
York to Toronto and addressed a crowd of almost one thousand people. It was
dinner time and mid-week, but we ran out of chairs. When the topic is graphic
sex education for children, people show up.
The sex ed portion of the curriculum imposed by liberal premier
Kathleen Wynne, I explained, is not about health, but about molding the
attitudes of children. The goal is to produce students who respect and affirm
nearly any type of sexual lifestyle. Teachers will promote an ideology which
has nothing to do with disease prevention and everything to do with sexual
license.
My talk (watch it here) and
accompanying PowerPoint included lots of hard science: the immature cervix, the
physiology of the vagina and rectum, the differentiation of the embryonic
brain, and the prefrontal cortex of the adolescent.
You see, Premier Wynne’s curriculum omits all that. It fails to
provide students with the science they must know, especially the biology that
explains the dangers of sexual activity in adolescence.
Instead, it instructs students: there are three types of
intercourse. Wait until you’re older, and always use a condom.
There are lots of problems with that, but I focused on the “wait
til you’re older” portion.
For a seventh grader, “older” can mean eighth grade. In seventh
grade he didn’t have sex. In eighth grade he did. He waited til he was older,
right? Just like his teacher said.
We can’t just tell kids “wait til you’re older”, I explained. We
must say “the urge is healthy and wonderful, but sex is a very serious matter
and even with protection, carries high risks for a teenager. One encounter can
change your life forever. Sex is for adults.”
I stated that the curriculum first and foremost fails to protect
boys who are attracted to other boys. Because of the high risk of transmitting
HIV through anal intercourse (even with a condom) and because gay males on
average have a higher number of partners and therefore more exposure to
infected individuals, boys must be warned.
It was clear to the audience: these are facts that cannot be
denied. This is science that students must know. It could save their lives.
Why, then, is it missing from the curriculum? Because, I
explained, they undermine the notion of sexual freedom upon which it is based.
When science contradicts the dreams of social activists, they’re ignored. They
don’t exist.
The audience, the most diverse I have ever addressed,
appreciated my words. They gave me a standing ovation.
While the event was certainly newsworthy, it was covered only by
conservative media. So I was surprised when I got this email:
I am a reporter with the Toronto Star, Canada’s
largest circulation daily paper. Working on a story about sex-ed protests here
in Ontario over the new curriculum, and I understand you have been speaking to
groups here about your concerns about it. I will need to speak with you today
416 xxx xxxx. Many thanks KR
A journalist from Canada’s equivalent of The New York Times! Could some
balanced reporting come from her? I doubted it. If she acknowledged my
biology-based arguments, it would be a first.
I called KR and gave her an abridged version of my lecture,
including a good amount of hard science. She asked, “Are you anti-gay?” I said,
“To the contrary – I’m trying to save their lives. The curriculum fails to warn
them of risks, that’s one reason I oppose it.”
She thanked me and agreed to send a link to her article in the
morning, but there was no email the following day, so I went to the Toronto
Star website. Maybe it didn’t run yet? I wrote KR and got this:
It ran today — the quotes from you were trimmed
because of space — but thank you so much, I will keep them on file for future
stories. I really appreciate you taking the time to speak with me.
Here is
her article. As expected, not a word about the inaccuracies of the curriculum,
or the omissions that place young lives at risk. No mention of my lecture, my
professional credentials, the huge audience. Poof! None of it happened.
“The quotes from you were trimmed because of space”? I think
not.
First of all, “trimmed’ is the wrong word. KR, you are a
journalist and should know about words. “Trimmed” means pared or edited. What I
said was ignored.
Why? Because I exposed the curriculum as an ideologically-driven
house of cards. Sadly, the Toronto
Star is a mouthpiece for activists who sacrifice children on
the altar of social agendas. Just like I stated at the event: if what’s seen
under the microscope undermines their beliefs, it doesn’t exist.
KR, you had a chance to act with integrity and provide your
audience with life-saving information. The readers of the Toronto Star may support
the premier, but herpes, chlamydia and HIV infect their children too. These
horrific bugs do not discriminate between conservative and liberal — you can
trust me on that one.
Toronto Star, I wish your journalist had the
courage to report the inconvenient truths I described. But in her failure to do
so, I am validated. And for that, I thank you.
Reprinted with permission from Dr. Miriam Grossman.
