I think I've had my head in the sand or something . . .

News about a transgendered United Methodist minister led me, eventually, to some articles about what is happening in the area of s*x ed in California . . . and to further disturbing realities concerning our country's public school programs.

For instance, check out the second clip on this page from the movie "It's Elementary": "Role-playing in the third grade."

How are third graders supposed to form any moral judgments on their own concerning the issues the teacher raises? How is anyone supposed to oppose the obvious direction that the teacher has sought to establish in his classroom? How would or could any conservatively inclined parent, who has sent his or her child into such a classroom, prepare that child to counter such "arguments" (or, rather, "presentations") on the part of the teacher?

Oh. And then I saw notices about what's going on in California with Senate Bill 777:

SB 777 requires textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual "marriages," and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so-called "gay history."

The article continues: "Silence on these sexual lifestyles will not be allowed." --True?

Well. . . . Not formally. The pertinent portions of the law, apparently as it was passed (this is the most recent version I was able to find), actually read:

SEC. 29. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

SEC. 30. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   51501. No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. . . .

SEC. 32. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by any governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. . . .

SB 777 proposes to modify Section 220 of the Education Code to include "sexual orientation" and "gender" among the "characteristics" on the basis of which "[n]o person shall be subjected to discrimination."

SB 777 also defines these "characteristics":

SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
   210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
   212.6. "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Someone wrote: "No one is being forced to speak positively about these things."

And someone else replied:

If a history textbook contained only references to white people and never mentioned black people in history, that could "reflect a discriminatory bias against" black people. The threat here is of textbook publishers including references to the sexual orientation of individuals in order to avoid [being charged with] reflecting a discriminatory bias against homosexuals. The purpose of the law isn't to end discrimination in textbooks (how many public school textbooks even mention homosexuality, let alone openly criticize it?); it is to indoctrinate children that homosexuality is normal.

It would be worthwhile, I think, to discuss that word "normal." It is outside the scope of this post. (Among the issues someone should address: the distinctions in meaning between words like "normal," "normative," "existent/exists/occurs," "occasional/common/frequent/usual," "expected," "desirable," and so forth.)

Without touching that discussion, I would simply like to note that, due to its size, what California mandates and approves, becomes, de facto what textbook publishers publish for students in all states.

And are these subjects either appropriate or appropriate for mandate in, for example, early elementary school education?

My opinion: no.

Obviously, others--like the producers of the "It's Elementary" film--disagree.