Why did the Edmonton Public School Board encourage families to fill out a survey about a new Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Policy if the results didn’t seriously interest them?
Why did the Edmonton Public School Board encourage families to fill out a survey about a new Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Policy if the results didn’t seriously interest them?
By Kathleen Lowrey (Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alberta)Woke Watch Canada Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. At its May 14, 2024 session, the Edmonton Public School Board held the first reading of a series of additions and modifications to their policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
“Public schools have absolutely no business at all promising to ‘work towards the removal of institutional and individual barriers related to heteronormativity and cisnormativity’”
Even using words like these with younger children is stupid. Woke fanatics are diminishing respect for Pride.
I have never seen or heard such idiocy. It is like they are contemporary Jones Town Moonies following the wishes of their cult like leader, Jim Jones just waiting for the opportunity to drink poisonous Kool Aid. As for pride, there is no pride in gendercide.
Perfectly said: “Gender identity and gender expression should be handled in the public school system the way religious belief is handled. Not grounds for exclusion, but also something that we recognize people have different beliefs about: including non-belief. Respecting Christianity does not mean you officially call non-Christians pagans or heathens; respecting Islam does not mean you officially label non-Muslims infidels; respecting Judaism does not mean you categorize non-Jews goyim in the classroom. Public schools cannot officially adopt and assign religious terms to non-believers. You can ask non-believers to respect the fact that YOU have a belief system. You cannot also demand that they participate in it on your terms, including by accepting the labels your belief system uses for them.”
It will be interesting to see what Kathleen finds with the FOI. If enough parents did not support this new proposed policy, but yet the Board still went through with it, there must be some type of recourse open to them. I'm hopeful at least.
And, Kathleen, thank you so much for confronting the board, and for posting this. I've been so distressed, and mad as hell, at what has been going on in the Universities, that I am very much relieved when I learn of a Professor who is fighting back.
Introducing a policy on sexual orientation and gender identity in a public school is nothing short of intellectual blasphemy. How any intellectually responsible individual could think that developing such a policy for a group that represents only 0.33 % of the Canadian population is worthy of such a controversial commitment clearly have their heads stuck up their, "Aspen Colorado". Let us not forget that gender dysphoria is recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, as a mental illness not as an expression of personal gender preference which any individual, at their whim, can select. This is really not a decision that a group of self important individuals anxious to be recognized as progressive thinkers should be allowed to make,. Why not simply play it safe and stick to the popular and important topic of, "Stranger Danger" and why this is important to children and parents alike.
Excellent, Kathleen (both this article and your meeting presentation). I haven't looked at any part of the meeting video yet, but hope to do so later. I'm wondering, did the school board conduct (and "tabulate") this survey themselves (I know there are apps for this), or did they contract a survey outfit to do it? I gather it was presented online, so presumably respondents could answer it anonymously. Did anyone in the district get to see the entire set of questions before the survey went out (and does a printed version exist)? Were respondents asked to identify whether they were parents, teachers, or students when filling it in, and were THOSE distinctions tabulated? Makes a difference if, say, more than half of respondents were teachers and students.
If the district paid an outside party to conduct the survey, for sure, you and others in the district should have a right to know all the facts and the tabulated results. And you should even if it was self-administered.
BTW, I think you may have said "July" in a couple of places where you meant to say June. Had me confused for a minute.
Oh my gosh Joan you are right about July! I can't believe I didn't catch that, thank you! I did mean June in each case, berk.
I don't know anything about the handling of the survey: whether it was in-house or they used a consulting firm or what. It would be interesting to know, either way, how much the whole thing cost because they paid no serious attention to it.
I DO think there was a first question about what category you belonged to as a respondent: parent, teacher, etc. You are exactly right that it would be important to see those numbers. If it was mostly teachers responding saying "this looks marvy" we need to take that into account. It would be great to know, for example, if teacher-respondents were more enthusiastic than parent-respondents.
But just in general: it seems evident that that kind of analysis was never attempted or even envisioned, as they only left 3 working days in which to do it.
Also, just to show how short a 250 character response limit is, this is 250 characters:
>>
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation,
“Public schools have absolutely no business at all promising to ‘work towards the removal of institutional and individual barriers related to heteronormativity and cisnormativity’”
Even using words like these with younger children is stupid. Woke fanatics are diminishing respect for Pride.
I have never seen or heard such idiocy. It is like they are contemporary Jones Town Moonies following the wishes of their cult like leader, Jim Jones just waiting for the opportunity to drink poisonous Kool Aid. As for pride, there is no pride in gendercide.
Perfectly said: “Gender identity and gender expression should be handled in the public school system the way religious belief is handled. Not grounds for exclusion, but also something that we recognize people have different beliefs about: including non-belief. Respecting Christianity does not mean you officially call non-Christians pagans or heathens; respecting Islam does not mean you officially label non-Muslims infidels; respecting Judaism does not mean you categorize non-Jews goyim in the classroom. Public schools cannot officially adopt and assign religious terms to non-believers. You can ask non-believers to respect the fact that YOU have a belief system. You cannot also demand that they participate in it on your terms, including by accepting the labels your belief system uses for them.”
FAIR Alberta also made an effort at bringing a rational voice to Trustee Sumar. It is quite evident that no amount of constructive reasoning would dissuade him from bringing forth such regressive policies. https://www.fairforall.org/alberta/letter-of-concern-to-edmonton-public-schools-board/.
It will be interesting to see what Kathleen finds with the FOI. If enough parents did not support this new proposed policy, but yet the Board still went through with it, there must be some type of recourse open to them. I'm hopeful at least.
And, Kathleen, thank you so much for confronting the board, and for posting this. I've been so distressed, and mad as hell, at what has been going on in the Universities, that I am very much relieved when I learn of a Professor who is fighting back.
It is an excellent letter thanks for sharing it!
Thank you so much for your work on this Kathleen!
Introducing a policy on sexual orientation and gender identity in a public school is nothing short of intellectual blasphemy. How any intellectually responsible individual could think that developing such a policy for a group that represents only 0.33 % of the Canadian population is worthy of such a controversial commitment clearly have their heads stuck up their, "Aspen Colorado". Let us not forget that gender dysphoria is recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, as a mental illness not as an expression of personal gender preference which any individual, at their whim, can select. This is really not a decision that a group of self important individuals anxious to be recognized as progressive thinkers should be allowed to make,. Why not simply play it safe and stick to the popular and important topic of, "Stranger Danger" and why this is important to children and parents alike.
Excellent, Kathleen (both this article and your meeting presentation). I haven't looked at any part of the meeting video yet, but hope to do so later. I'm wondering, did the school board conduct (and "tabulate") this survey themselves (I know there are apps for this), or did they contract a survey outfit to do it? I gather it was presented online, so presumably respondents could answer it anonymously. Did anyone in the district get to see the entire set of questions before the survey went out (and does a printed version exist)? Were respondents asked to identify whether they were parents, teachers, or students when filling it in, and were THOSE distinctions tabulated? Makes a difference if, say, more than half of respondents were teachers and students.
If the district paid an outside party to conduct the survey, for sure, you and others in the district should have a right to know all the facts and the tabulated results. And you should even if it was self-administered.
BTW, I think you may have said "July" in a couple of places where you meant to say June. Had me confused for a minute.
Oh my gosh Joan you are right about July! I can't believe I didn't catch that, thank you! I did mean June in each case, berk.
I don't know anything about the handling of the survey: whether it was in-house or they used a consulting firm or what. It would be interesting to know, either way, how much the whole thing cost because they paid no serious attention to it.
I DO think there was a first question about what category you belonged to as a respondent: parent, teacher, etc. You are exactly right that it would be important to see those numbers. If it was mostly teachers responding saying "this looks marvy" we need to take that into account. It would be great to know, for example, if teacher-respondents were more enthusiastic than parent-respondents.
But just in general: it seems evident that that kind of analysis was never attempted or even envisioned, as they only left 3 working days in which to do it.
Also, just to show how short a 250 character response limit is, this is 250 characters:
>>
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation,
>>