Don’t Mess with Mumma Bear


Get between a mother bear and her cubs, and then try to mess with that cub in any way, and you should be very afraid. Labor marginal seats in Sydney - and Melbourne no doubt - should also fear the rage of mothers about Labor's commitment to the radical 'Safe Schools' programme. Here Miranda Devine describes the brave response of some Sydney mums and their community:

...a group of mothers from inner-western Sydney’s Greek community...are on the warpath against Safe Schools and similar radical sex education programs, and have set up a Facebook page and website

­titled: You’re Teaching our Children What?

Sophie, one of 10 mothers involved, says they want to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals but they have had an “overwhelmingly positive response” from parents.

“I found out my son’s school was part of Safe Schools and I hadn’t been informed so we started looking at the program and all the gender theory behind it,” she said yesterday.

“None of it sat well with us. When you speak to (other mothers) they’re horrified, upset and feel they have no control …

“It’s not an anti-bullying program … This program is about sexualisation of children and it’s not what our families believe in, and I don’t believe it is what most Australians believe in.”

Emails to the website have flooded in from parents anxious about Safe Schools and other sex programs taught without their knowledge. They say their children are being bullied and stigmatised by teachers for not conforming on issues such as same-sex marriage and gender and sexual fluidity.

One girl wrote to complain about her geography teacher’s advocacy of same-sex marriage: “I dreaded going to my geography lessons. If someone tries to say anything we get shut down and are labelled as bigots or haters … It makes me feel scared and uncomfortable”.

One mother wrote that her children were shown a video during assembly before Wear It Purple Day: “My children … felt as if the video was promoting homosexual and transsexual lifestyles as desirable.”

Afterwards a girl asked her Year 8 son what he thought about homosexuality. “He responded that he did not agree with this lifestyle choice. The girl then called my son a homophobe ... My son felt that the group of students there at the time supported the girl and labelled him a homophobe unfairly. It made the rest of the week at school difficult for him … This incident has led to ongoing bullying.”

Father Eusebios, the Abbot of the Pantanassa Greek Orthodox Monastery, told some of the families at a forum in Belmore last month of the confusion and anxiety the new sex education classes are creating for children.

“From first-hand experience as confessor … I’ve been confronted with many examples that have given me the drive to ask you to join us to do something about this …

“I had a 13-year-old child come to me who tells me he’s been told to go home and find a picture of a male celebrity on the internet and explain to the entire class why he is sexually attracted to that male and he says to the teacher ‘I can’t do this’ and she removes him from the classroom.”

State-sponsored sexualisation of children, in the form of Safe Schools, Building Respectful Relationships (BRR), and Start Early for preschoolers is not occurring by accident.

It is a deliberate and systematic program of sexual indoctrination designed by university gender studies academics, and based on the anti-family theories of the architects of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and their later mutations.

It is being administered without parental consent, and is designed to revolutionise family relationships and transform the way children think about gender and heterosexual sex.

But the sleeping giant of parental concern is beginning to stir.

In churches and schools in the inner west the Greek community has begun the backlash, and they’re making it an election issue.

Vote Labor and you get Safe Schools, they say...

Jeff Kennett: Failure to Play it Safe - Miranda Devine - Daily Telegraph

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

62 Responses

  1. JT

    And what exactly does this have to do with marriage?

    Marriage is not mentioned once. You’re taking something completely out of context to invoke fearmongering.

    It’s absurd that you resort to this and insulting to your own cause.

    • AJ

      Hi JT, appreciate your concern. What you may not realise is that removing gender from marriage leads to removing gender from society. We’ve already watched this happen in the USA. Gay sex education and teaching that gender is fluid to children as young as 4 is already happening in our schools. If Genderless Marriage is legalised, parents will no longer have a voice to express their concerns.

      • JT

        They’re still two separate issues, you’re essentially just trying to create another ‘slippery slope’ argument and it doesn’t work.

        The irony is this article is about something that you claim is already happening so therefore how can leaving an existing law unchanged prevent this from happening?

        If it were decided tomorrow that same sex marriage would never be legal in Australia it would not put an automatic end to ‘Safe Schools’ and vice versa, if it were decided tomorrow that ‘Safe Schools’ would never be allowed it would have no bearing on whether same sex marriage would go ahead.

        You are just taking things out of context and appropriating to create an abstract enemy that doesn’t exist. You’re resorting to fear tactics and it reeks of desperation.

        If same sex marriage is legalised it has no bearing on a parents “voice to express their concerns”. Just as current marriage laws have absolutely no bearing on a parents rights in this context.

        • AJ

          JT, you only have to look at what is happening now in the USA to see exactly how the two are connected. No fear tactics here, just stating facts. Parents have a right to be concerned about what is being taught to their children without their consent.

          • Wrong again. One school in Massachusetts reading a book about two kings does not mean a general policy of sex ed.

        • JT,
          You stated, “If same-sex marriage is legalised.” How do the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators plan to legalise same-sex marriage in Australia? Since “same-sex marriage” is not based in nature/biology, social science, history or religion they don’t need to be identified with man-woman sexual union in the Marriage Act. The LGBTIAQ could get government to create a Gay Partnership Act to register sexual activities between same-sex couples. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have no right to change the meaning and purpose of marriage between one man and one woman, but they can have control and power to rule over their own people whom identify as LGBTIAQ. My marriage can never equal 2 men or 2 women as this is biologically and scientifically impossible.

  2. JT

    Would you also care to elaborate on your statement that the USA has removed gender from its society?

    And while you’re on that, do you have any other examples from another country (where same sex marriage has been legalised) that now has a genderless society as a result ?

  3. JT

    Parents do have a right to be concerned about what is being taught to their children. Agreed. So how does marriage equality change any of this?

    Currently a parent’s marital status has no bearing on their right to be concerned as a parent, how would this right change if same sex couples are granted marriage equality?

    Give a logical path to how the two are connected. Don’t try and create a fallacy that pretends the two issues are the same thing.

    • AJ

      Here’s one article to get you started on your research of this topic. JT:

      • But you’re wrong. Marriage laws do not regulate school curricula. Ergo, school curricula will not be affected by marriage equality.

      • JT

        This doesn’t answer anything AJ.

        How does the example you give, written by yourself on the same website, demonstrate where a country, that legalised same sex marriage, has now become a genderless nation? It doesn’t at all.

        I think all it does is further demonstrate the questionable tactics you are using which consequently validates my point.

        • AJ

          There are a number of links included in the article, JT. Take a look. And here’s another article. Don’t just read our articles – follow the links:

          • JT

            This still doesn’t provide any facts to back up your statement that the USA is now a genderless society AJ.

            Continuing to cite yourself does not demonstrate credibility it demonstrates more subjectiveness.

            Please provide a direct fact that supports your statement.

          • AJ

            As I said, just follow the links JT. Plenty of facts to be found.

          • JT

            Would you be so kind to copy and paste just one fact that supports your claim that marriage equality has rendered the USA a genderless society. Thanks in advance.

          • JT

            If you cannot find one fact to copy and paste to support your statement you should retract it, it’s time we started keeping things honest.

  4. Also worth noting (and I wonder if the Greek mothers have checked this or simply relied on the misleading information they have been given even in the last week or so) that ALL the recommended changes to the Safe Schools Coalition program are now implemented.
    It would be really helpful AMF if you ran this positive news story.If you are not prepared to do so then I cant help wondering why…

    • AJ

      Not so in Victoria, Margaret.

      • Where marriage equality is not legal, so I’m not sure what your point is.

    • Jt

      I think I know why…To perpetuate homophobia in society, why else?

      Preying on a mother’s fear that she will lose control over her rights as a parent if marriage equality is allowed.

      AJ is creating a latent pain that will never eventuate in an attempt to get a mother to fight for her rights for a cause that has no bearing on those rights to begin with. It’s pure propaganda, that’s unintelligent and unimaginative.

      …”Gestapo taticts” AJ, do you really want to go there?

      I admire your principles Margaret, your strength to not concede to the level of the AMF and your ability to remain absolutely fair while upholding your beliefs. I am really interested to know the reasons why you oppose marriage equality, it would be refreshing to see some sane debate.

  5. Thanks for your comments JT.

    I don’t see my stance as opposing marriage equality, though I respect your right to see it in that way.
    I see it as an opportunity (now sadly rapidly disappearing to judge by many posts here) to establish a new legal relationship free from all the baggage (good and bad!) of traditional marriage.

    Croatia provides an excellent example of this with its life partnerships. The pro traditional marriage lobby in Croatia ran from what i have read a respectful campaign and achieved their objective. This paved the way for life partnerships to be introduced.Nobody’s sky has fallen…

    It is simply not true (as you and I would I think both agree) that same sex couples already have full equality under the law.They don’t have access to a legal relationship equivalent to marriage. As long as they do not there is a situation of inequality. That is what the Australian community as a whole is seeing.No room has been left in the debate for suggesting any other way of addressing that inequality.

    it’s the ‘same story’ with Safe Schools Coalition.There are people in the gay community (notably Rodney Croome) who have real misgivings about the Victorian model and have put in the hard yards to address the problem of bullying of LGBTI very differently (as is often the case Tasmania is a beacon of hope and common sense in all this!).

    Likewise in Catholic schools a report in 2007 (Not so Straight) recognised the real problem of bullying of LGBTI students and suggested ways forward. But we don’t hear about any of this because of the fixation (sorry AJ but that is how I see it) with the so called radical rainbow agenda. That fixation leads (understandably) to a perception of homophobia.That’s what the protest was about.

    AJ if I were a parent or grandparent of a child in a Victorian school I might well have concerns which I’d raise through the normal channels. I think Bill Louden’s recommended changes were justified.We only have to think of chaplaincy to realize the problems of not adequately vetting outside programs!! (There was a video doing the rounds exactly parallel to the Roz Ward one:the organiser of a chaplaincy program in SA saying that of course it was about teaching Christianity)

    But that is not the issue here. And i still wonder where the Greek mothers are getting their information from…

    • JT

      Interesting point of view Margaret, I agree not much room has been left.

      I suspect this idea would meet some of the same resistance (on this forum especially) it seems the main goal of many opposed to marriage equality is to oppress homosexuality.

      Your thoughts AJ?

      • Ash

        Who wrote the Safe Schools program? What is their stance on marriage equality? It’s no slippery slope, it’s an overt desire to impose social change to make homosexuality and unacceptable sexual education a norm.

        To support traditional marriage is not to oppose homosexuality. Straw man argument.

    • Ash

      Inequality also describes two things not being equal, such as the union between a man and a woman not being the same that between two men or two women. There are no rights withheld from LGBT people in whatever union they wish to celebrate in Australian society, so there really is not need to try and equate their relationship with that between a man and a woman. Why not just call it something else as it is clearly different?

  6. AJ I followed the link you provided above to the Marquette University case.I recall reading Austin Ruse’s article back in March (independently of this Forum) and having serious misgivings about his version of events. This is certainly confirmed by further checking.The issue here was about academic process. which apparently Associate Professor John McAdams had not always observed in the past.
    His choosing publicly to denigrate the teacher in question by name was a serious breach of academic protocol , and was also based on a recording made by the student without the teacher’s knowledge and consent.It was on this basis that he was disciplined by the University and essentially nothing to do with the issue of same sex marriage.As a former academic I can assure you that this version of the story makes far more sense than the one presented by Austin Ruse. Further details here (though this too is subjective)

    Basically there is no way Marquette could NOT have disciplined John McAdams, and it is only because he refused to accept the discipline that the dispute continues.

    I accept that these stories of dire consequences of legalising same sex marriage are presented in good faith by you and others, but I have had occasion to investigate a number of the most widely circulated ones and am very worried at the frequency with which they turn out to be inaccurate.

  7. Ash

    This article is about SSCA’s program, not SSM. But how can anyone doubt the link between the two? Parents should have a say on what social matters their kids are being taught at school. Granted. Now how much say do they have on the Safe Schools program content and what their children are exposed to through it?

    • JT

      Ash, you’ve just completely disregarded all the previous comments that answer your question.

      There is a “link between the two” it’s called homophobia.

  8. Ash to have the government order an enquiry by an eminent academic seems to me a fair amount of influence.
    And to have the outcome of that enquiry ignored , whether in ignorance (as in not knowing) or because it does not fit their argument, seems to me puzzling.
    All the protests by supporters of SSCA are precisely because the program was changed as a result of pressure from parents.
    So I’m asking again: do the Greek mothers (who are in NSW) realise this? And if they have been misled by whom and for what reason?

    For example if you look at the SSCA website (modified as per the inquiry) there is a press release dated 25 May:
    The role play activity that has been discussed in media today is not and has never been part of Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) resources.

  9. I am one of those parents who is extremely concerned about Safe School and I will not be voting for Labor because of this issue (I have voted for Labor in the past as I tend to be a swing voter but not this time!). As a parent I believe the Safe Schools program is completely inappropriate for our children. Of course those who have an agenda to change how marriage and sexuality are viewed in our society want to target impressionable youth of the rising generation. From what I have seen and read Safe Schools is unsafe for our children and encourages behaviour that has health risks and encourages sexual experimentation when underage. What parent would want schools to encourage and promote this? It is absolutely wrong and I’m sure many parents are appalled at what the government and education department are doing to our kids. My child has been bullied at school because he believes in traditional marriage. When did that become a social crime? This so called anti-bullying program is creating another form of bullying where children and teachers label those who do not dance to the rainbow drum a homophobe or hater. This bullying does not stop at verbal assaults but also includes physical abuse. When did supporting LGBT activists give others the right to ridicule and bully? I have also raised concerns that teachers are promoting biased political views in classrooms. Once again the freedom to have a differing opinion without being labelled a hater or bigot is being used to shut down opposing views – even in our classrooms. Of course Safe School and the SSM debate are linked. That much is evident when we discover who designed Safe Schools and the tactics used to control and shut down those with legitimate concerns. There is no such thing as mutual respect in Safe Schools. Schools are apparently only safe for students who agree with the LGBT agenda.

    • JT

      Sonia, a mere creator of safe schools does not provide evidence that the two issues are linked. Just because you use the word evident doesn’t make it fact. Did you read any of the previous comments? It sounds like you are one of those Mothers that the AMF wants to use to their advantage in a battle against a fabricated enemy. Please give it more thought and hopefully you can realise that the two issues are not the same, be logical and rational and don’t fall into the catastrophising fear invoking fallacy that AMF wants.

      As a mother, which you’ve clearly pointed out, what would you do if one of your children identified as gay or lesbian? Hypothetically of course…

    • Sonia,
      I agree with you, and I am not voting Labor because they support a fantasy legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples. There are now a lot more children/teenagers being bullied in schools because they believe marriage is only between one man and one woman. I am thinking about dropping my Union membership because they support a man-made “open marriage” between any two people. Australians have witnessed our political leaders bullying others by calling them names because people disagree with them

  10. Sonia I respect your right to be concerned for your children (if i lived in Victoria I’d be concerned at some aspects of the original program).
    But is the material you have seen actually part of the program now?
    Was it ever part of the program?
    Have you read the review by Professor Louden and checked out the changes made to the national program in line with his recommendations?
    All of this material is readily available.

    As to bullying and ridicule of our children (and grandchildren ) for their Christian (or other) beliefs, I know how tough this is to see and experience. But with the greatest respect it’s something that we need to teach them to live with, as well obviously as asking schools to address it in their policies on bullying.

    I can’t help feeling that if we had all spent as much time critiquing school policies on bullying as we have on studying what we think is in the Safe Schools Coalition program we would have spent our time more productively.

    Now that so much material , including the Safe Schools Coalition material, is in the one place, the long established and extremely worthwhile Safe Schools Hub (part of the National Safe Schools Framework, around since 2003) we can do this.

    • Margaret,
      I have read through all the respectful relationship program and Safe School Coalition program, and I don’t want my children to be exposed to either of these programs. Schools have no right to discuss with my children their sexual relationships. I told my children, if teachers ever ask them complete a sexual survey or discuss any sexual relationship they should refuse and to get their teacher to contact me.

      • Janine I believe that is your right as a parent and it is supposed to be explicit in the changes made in March (I’m assuming you are referring to the updated program/lesson plans?)

        How this works in your particular school especially if you are in Victoria I don’t know.My family has been expressing concern in both state and faith based schools for at least 40 years over everything from excursion regulations through assumptions about family status to uniform hygiene and safety and literature content.

        Sometimes it helps to have a strong parent body in the school, and of course success varies.

        But as I said elsewhere: as a regular lobbyist on a variety of issues I’d be pretty happy if I got a government inquiry by an expert. Worth reading Professor Louden’s full report.Incidentally there may well be other aspects of the Health syllabus which you would find disturbing. I think in general we don’t take enough interest in what our children are taught.

  11. For those who think this article is irrelevant, read the “About” page on this site.
    “This site will help people to think from the child’s perspective in addition to the adults’ perspective and consider what it means to normalise, with the force of law, a domestic model where a child is deprived of either a mother or a father. Further, this site will consider the implications for school education, where the normalising of homosexual ‘marriage’ will be used to further normalise homosexual behaviour. Finally, this site will look widely at implications for the stifling of free speech and free conscience that has been observed in overseas jurisdictions which have introduced same-sex marriage.”
    end quote.

    Who are you to dictate what the admin may post? Who appointed you as moderator?
    (rhetorical questions)

    • JT

      Mikel, no one is suggesting this has nothing to do with the AMF’s questionable agenda only that in reality this article has nothing to do with marriage.

      A misguided ethos doesn’t make anything more creditable. You cannot expect to publish untruths and propaganda and not have them dispelled on what is a public forum on what is fundamentally meant to be about marriage within a section that says “Have your say, News and Views”

      Your statement doesn’t have a lot of relevance to the issue being discussed.

      • “…no one is suggesting…”
        You assume to speak for everyone here, then?

        • JT

          No Mikel, I was stating that none of the comments posted here suggest that. And they don’t. That’s not speaking for anyone, you can clearly read through all the comments yourself.

          • AJ

            Hey JT, some more links to show you how gender is being removed from the USA:
            And you’ll find in the UK such laws that have allowed Elton John to list his male partner as ‘mother’ on the birth certificate of his children, removing any trace of their biological mother.

          • JT

            Thanks AJ, these articles are a much better way of of trying to back up your statement and I can better appreciate your thought process on this.

            Unfortunately though they don’t actually back up your claim that the USA is now a genderless nation, quite the contrary actually.

            The first article basically outlines the rights for individuals to be referred to with the title they identify with and prefer. It doesn’t change the meaning of anybody else’s title and it’s implications are rather frivolous. Mr. And Mrs. Still exist so you cannot say this is genderless.

            The second article is basically about transgendered children being allowed to use the bathrooms that best align with their gender – simply aligning oneself with a particular gender doesn’t change or destroy the gender for anyone else. The fact that they identify as that gender and reject the opposite gender demonstrates that gender differences still exist.

            The male and female bathrooms also still exist, the only way your statement would hold true in this example is if it were ordered that no gendered bathrooms be in place.

            Before you start catastrophising and suggesting that if anyone can use any bathroom regardless of the anatomy they were born with then gendered bathrooms have lost their meaning – this isn’t occurring it’s a minority of people that deserve consideration.

            These examples actually strengthen the difference between genders and it’s actually about where a mere few individuals fit into these strongly defined categories not how the categories are destroyed or are no longer in existence.

            Logically, if the USA were genderless then these examples couldn’t exist in the first instance. Most of this has to do with issues regarding transgender, how could an individual be transgender if there were no genders to transition to?

            And again just to reiterate- marriage equality has absolutely no bearing on any of this.

          • AJ

            Hi JT, we never said the USA IS genderless, but that’s the way it’s headed. These are all examples of that and for the record, ANY man can enter a woman’s bathroom in the USA, as long as he says he claims that he identifies as a woman. And you forgot to respond to the fact that Elton John’s male partner is listed as the ‘mother’ of this children on their birth certificate in the UK. Removing the pre-requsite of being a WOMAN from motherhood is another example of how gender is being removed from societies where SSM has been legalised. If you can’t see that the two are connected, that is naivety at best.

          • JT

            “What you may not realise is that removing gender from marriage leads to removing gender from society. We’ve already watched this happen in the USA.”

            That statement above, made by you, suggests that gender has been removed from society in the USA. But I see you’re admitting that was an exaggeration. In any case my previous argument still proves that concept untrue so thanks for just pointing out that you were exaggerating.

            Now that we are being honest about your exaggerations…Any man can walk into the the ladies toilets if he says he is a female? I’m going to the USA in a few weeks, if I am a man, am I allowed to walk into the female toilets at LAX as long as I say I’m a woman? … Even though my passport would say male? Really?

            As for our friend Sir Elton, you’re just taking an outdated administrational limitation out of context and it doesn’t mean anything. The certificate in California says something to the extent of “parent 1/mother…..” and “parent 2/father….” so the name of the parent was put as one of the 2 parents not made “mother”. It’s important to note that in the UK it is simply parent 1 or parent 2. So you’re destroying your own argument that the USA is becoming genderless by using this example. Good job.

            AJ, your appropriation, exaggeration and complete lack of respect for context is childish at best.

          • AJ

            JT, we have indeed already watched gender being removed from the USA and yes, you may walk into whatever toilet you feel like at LA airport. This is what landed the good people of North Carolina in hot water. They merely made it law that patrons use the toilet that matches the gender on their birth certificate (which can be changed at any time) but have been demonised for it by the rest of America. And Elton John’s ‘husband’ is, in fact, listed as ‘mother’ on the birth certificates of his children:

            Gender is being removed in every country where genderless marriage has been legalised. We would do well do heed the warnings.

          • Re: AJ’s link to the Germaine Greer / Elton John article.

            Good point, AJ. A man cannot be regarded as a mother, and if a piece of paper says so, it is a false document. In my opinion.
            Quote from that link:
            Sir Elton, [in response to his fellow gay artists, Italian designers, Dolce and Gabbana] said: ‘How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic’. And shame on you for wagging your judgemental little fingers at IVF – a miracle that has allowed legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfil their dream of having children.’
            end quote.

            Straight from the horses mouth, – “fulfil their dream of having children”.
            It is all just a dream and selfish desire.
            It is not surprising that he uses the word ‘legions’, for there are many who oppose the natural birth process.

      • JT,
        You’re unbelievable in wanting control and power to dictate the meaning and purpose of marriage for everyone. You could do us all a favour and keep your fantasy “same-sex marriage” in the virtual world where it belongs. Intact families have a mother, a father and their biological children. If you want to create other family structures which deprive children from either their mother or father it is best to do this in the virtual world where there are no consequences for your creation. There are no consequences for anal and oral sexual activities in the virtual world.

  12. I’ll offer my opinion on this issue, for what it’s worth:
    I am concerned about this Safe Schoools program. ie. programming children to accept adult concepts of sexual fluidity. I am pleased to know there are others questioning it.

    I’m not surprised if children are now being bullied if they identify as heterosexual.
    I believe sexual reproduction as a biological objective fact should be taught to children at an appropriate age, before puberty.
    Sexual orientation is a personal, subjective experience. No need to make it mandatory and public.

    I have an honest question: Is the antibully safe school program biased towards lgbtqi as I am led to believe? There are many reasons why children are bullied.
    It seems the bullied have become the bullies in this case.

    • Fair question Mikel.
      If by ‘the antibully safe school program ‘ you mean the Safe Schools Coalition program in general (and the All of Us program in particular) then yes they are particularly concerned with bullying issues faced by LGBTI students, which have been very well documented over the past decade.There are however different ways these particular issues could be addressed. I can discuss this further if you wish.It is vital however that we acknowledge that there are particular issues that will not be dealt with by general bullying programs.

      If however you are referring to Safe Schools in a wider context it is a long standing national initiative first introduced in the context of the National Safe Schools Framework.All the resources developed for that program are available (to teachers, parents and students as relevant) through the Safe Schools Hub.They include a wide range of mental health and wellbeing resources.That is where, as a result of the recent inquiry, the now modified Safe Schools Coalition material can be accessed.And again it can be accessed by teachers, parents and students.

      Some of the material on the Safe Schools Hub deals with other particular issues such as cyberbullying.

      To fail to differentiate between the “Safe Schools’ initiative in general and the”Safe Schools Coalition’ program in particular risks jeopardising over a decade of wonderful work done to ensure the wellbeing of Australian children. This would be a tragedy for us all.We owe it to all these children we care about to be well informed before we speak.

      At the risk of offering unsolicited advice (again) I’d really encourage everyone to check all of this out for themselves rather than relying on hearsay and Chinese whispers.Al of the material is very easily accessible online.

      • Yes Margaret, I see what you mean.
        I don’t feel any need to support the Safe Schools Coalition program.
        But I agree with the meaning of the Safe Schools initiatve as in your second paragraph.

        Perhaps bullying in general has increased since I was a kid. No doubt cyberbullying is a recent phenomenon, which needs to be addressed.

        I was about to ask where I could get more information about these school programs. I guess it differs from state to state.
        As you say, the resources are available, I will look into it.

        • Mikel.
          Sorry, my first reply was so long I deleted it and started again trying to be briefer.

          The Kids Matter material is particularly worth checking out, also the Bullying No Way program though some of the resources can’t be accessed on a computer as old as mine is!

  13. Yeah, I try to be brief when I can.
    Thanks for the link. There’s a lot of good information there.

    On the other hand, the Safe School Coalition definitely does have a biased agenda.
    “All students have a right to a safe and inclusive environment when they go to school.”
    Then they only focus on homophobia and transphobia.

    Teachers have a responsibilty to be objective and not biased.
    I think the problem is this minority interest group is involved in teaching programs, and recieving government funding.

    Gender theories are not understood by us adults, so should not be taught to children until it is understood. If we do not know what causes transgender and homosexual feelings then we are ignorant. The ignorant teaching the ignorant, the blind leading the blind.

    We are all equal, but the lgbt are more equal and deserve special attention?
    Bullying is such a childish term. Intimidation is not acceptable regardless of sex. Why is sex such a big deal for the Safe Schools Coalition.
    Their own obsession with sex is being forced onto the children.

    • This obsession with sexual expression is being forced down our throat, so to speak, as ironic as that is, (since I’ve heard time and again that no one likes religion shoved down their throat)..
      And this SSCA is funded through school education no less.

      It is the same as religious or political indoctrination. Hypocrite much?

      Most of us, and most children don’t have these problems of sexual identity.
      It’s so gay to want to stand out in the limelight and make a big fuss about it. That’s why they get so much media attention.
      I saw a poster recently that said , “don’t say it’s ok , to say ‘it’s so gay'”.
      But it is.
      There is a difference. Some people are gay and most are not. Deal with it instead of demanding it is the same thing.

      Sexualizing children too young is irresponsible.

      • Mikel there is overwhelming evidence gathered over the past decade that same sex attracted students are bullied because of their same sex attraction,sometimes with devastating short and long term consequences to their mental health.

        The question we need to be asking as a community is how best to address that.If the answer is not the Safe Schools Coalition program what is it?
        Not simply a rhetorical question.In Tasmania (and in the Catholic school system throughout Australia) a different approach has been chosen.

        As to the acceptability of phrases such as ‘that’s so gay’…
        Well I am old enough to remember and cringe at when schoolyard abuse involved using ‘spastic’ and ‘retard ‘in the same way. And they were NOT the good old days… Not for the physically or mentally disabled and perhaps just as importantly not for anyone else.

  14. I was using “gay” in the original sense of the word, I meant no offence. If anyone who is gay takes offence to a word that they have misappropriated, that it is sad.

    I was taught sex education at school in the seventies at age 11. I already new about sex but vaguely and naively. It is appropriate to teach children about the reprodictive process before they start experiencing erections or menstruation. That seems appropriate to me..
    Am I old fashioned for wanting to stick to those facts?

    I understand that children, particularly girls are reaching puberty at a younger age in recent years. Possibly caused by eostrogen mimicking chemicals in our general environment.
    But accepting it all as normal is irresponsible and deliberately ignorant.

    Here is a perfect example of why not to teach children about sex too young.
    A youtube link:
    Mae Martin, a lesbian comedian talking about her childhood. I think this is a good example and reason to restrict the teaching of sexual fluidity to children at schools..
    If a parent tells their 5 yo daughter about the details of sexual reproduction as well as the alternative gay sexual behavior, – as a girl, would that influence her to identify as lesbian? I wonder.
    I can imagine it would be traumatic for a 5yo girl to have to imagine the conception and birth process.
    I find it hard to put myself in those shoes because I am male, but wouldn’t that information be enough to turn a young girl off men for life?
    Children need to grow up before they can handle adult concepts.
    I feel sorry for Mae, and find it hard to laugh with her, as much as she thinks it’s funny. But well done to her for speaking out, and relating her experiences. Sadness expressed as humour. :’-(

    • Mikel I can assure you that when the phrase “that’s so gay” is used in an Australian schoolyard it 2016 it’s not referring to the flowerbeds.
      Like you I do lament we’ve lost the original meaning…

      Sex education: It’s been in middle primary classes for more than 20 years (remembering my children’s schools). The reason it is now being taught even younger is at least partly the sad reality that children need enough knowledge to protect themselves against abuse.Also as you say younger age of menarche (more commonly attributed to nutrition and genetics than environment). I agree such education needs to be age appropriate.

      Having grown up on a farm I’m a little doubtful about any link between witnessing birth and sexual preference/orientation.And my city born daughters and granddaughter quite happily ‘played’ giving birth, just as they had enjoyed observing pregnancy.

      None of this however seems to have direct bearing on the sort of material presented to students in the Safe Schools Coalition program since it is designed to be included in secondary school teaching.The fact that a school is a member of SSC does not mean the teaching material is being used.Like you I have misgivings about the teaching material and as I’ve suggested earlier I favour an alternative approach.

      • Margaret, growing up on a farm affords a good primary sex education for sure. You watch the animals and get a sense of the whole process. Then you realize we are not mere animals, but we have control over sexual impulses.

        I wonder if you were you taught that giving birth and heterosexuality is optional like they do today?

        • Now I wonder if it is ok to call someone gay if in fact, they are.
          Or is that not ok?
          It depends on what the individual prefers – lgbtqi or something else.

          Meanwhile, the majority are not so confused about themselves.

        • Mikel I can confidently say that at school I was not taught about either birth or sexuality.
          This is not a situation I would recommend.
          In a small rural community I did however know of several cases of incest and one transgender individual (a respected member of the community).
          I was taught by my committed Christian parents to view all of the people in those situations without judgement.
          Hopefully I taught my own children the same.

          • You don’t recommend that adolescents should be taught about sexual reproduction?
            How can it be ok to teach sexual diversity then? I must have misunderstood you there.

            I’ll share another personal anecdote as well:
            I Know someone very close to me that has become a transgender woman.
            I make no judgements, I question why?

          • oh I get it now.
            You said you don’t recommend not being taught about birth and sexuality.
            Double negative makes a positve.
            Tricky 🙂

          • Sorry Mikel not deliberately tricky!
            Actually just thinking my best friend who was pregnant at 15 and a (married) mother at 16 might have needed the education we were not given (if you see what I mean…).

          • Yes, Margaret,
            I think we all need to find a common ground. Older and younger generations and everyone in between. Good convo we’ve had. Peace, for now at least.

    • Teachers need to explain the reproductive process, ie. the purpose of sex is heterosexual copulation which creates a new life that both parents are responsible for..

      If teachers are mandated to teach gender diversity, they need to explain what causes transgender and homosexual tendencies. Surely.

Leave a comment