Share this story...
gender
Latest News

Rantz: School warns that concerns over gender identity lessons to kids are ‘microaggression’ against LGBTQ+

Cherry Crest Elementary School's email to staff on LGBTQ resources.

Elementary school teachers given resources to teach young kids about pansexuals and gender identities were preemptively warned against microaggressions towards the LGBTQ community. The microaggression? Showing concern over the subject matter.

The assistant principal of Cherry Crest Elementary, Erin Stedman, emailed staff with resources to celebrate LGBT+ Pride Month. But it came with a warning. Teachers at this Bellevue school were told it is a microaggression to say, “LGBTQ+ is not developmentally appropriate.”

But if a teacher doesn’t think it’s age-appropriate to teach elementary students about pansexuals, for example, this effectively accuses them of bigotry. Consequently, that may stop them from expressing good-faith concerns with their hypersensitive assistant principal.

The district is defending the warning with a spokesperson claiming it was meant for “conservatives” who didn’t even get the email.

Warning against microaggression

According to the email, the resources offered are meant to “celebrate people whose relationships and genders have not always been celebrated in the world.”

Rather than stick to the more traditional LGBTQ identities, Cherry Crest included pansexuals, two-spirit, intersex, and asexual. Schools across the district add these identities under the guise of being more inclusive. It’s mostly to show how woke and hip they are to progressive identity politics.

In addition, the resources teach gender pronouns, list “social justice” books to read, and promote the idea that gender does not exist with videos on non-binary identity.

Perhaps anticipating that some teachers may object to these lessons for 5-11 year-olds, the email pre-emptively stops what Assistant Principal Stedman believes would offend the LGBTQ community.

“When reaching out please be mindful that the common phrase ‘LGBTQ+ is not developmentally appropriate,’ is a microaggression to the LGBTQ+ community. Feel free to come with genuine questions and we are happy to support classroom advocacy,” the warning says.

Leftists define microaggression as an unintended and often subtle form of discrimination against members of a marginalized group. Progressives often use it to word police and shame people into adopting far-left positions.

What’s that mean exactly?

Reasonable teachers may find any lesson plans on pansexuals inappropriate for young kids.

For example, talking to a 5-year-old about a pansexual’s sexual and emotional attraction to every gender identity would be tricky. And good luck explaining the two-spirit gender identity to a child. Most adults don’t even know what it is.

So why would concerns over age-appropriateness be a microaggression? The district won’t say when asked directly.

“Our curriculum suggests ways to share concepts with educators to instruct students, that are age appropriate for their level of understanding,” Interim Director of Communication Janine Thorn tells the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH via email.

The district claims the warning is for conservatives

Thorn actually says it’s not concern over the curriculum that would constitute a microaggression. Concerns over the term “LGBTQ+” are microaggressions.

Thorn told me over the phone that the warning was for non-staff members who might question the use of “LGBTQ+.”

“I would imagine that that is coming from a conservative point of view or somebody that’s conservative-minded,” Thorn speculated.

She went on to say via email that “people who think that it is inappropriate to use the term LGBTQ+ (to describe the community) with children, is in our view a microaggression because to use the term in an appropriate context, is an accurate way to describe a group of people who proudly identify as such.”

But the assistant principal sent the email to her staff. How would one reasonably conclude this was a message for conservative outsiders? She also did not provide any examples of conservatives expressing concern over the acronym.

The district response doesn’t really make sense

Stedman did not respond to questions.

Thorn originally offered to connect me with the assistant principal for a conversation, but the next day claimed she wasn’t available. Instead, Thorn answered my questions intended for the assistant principal. Perhaps that’s why they’re confusing.

Why in the world would a staff email include a microaggression warning for people not on the email list? I’m not buying what Thorn implied. The context of the warning seems pretty clearly intended for the staff, which is why it starts with “when reaching out.” It’s a warning for the staff. It is also why the warning ends with the request that the staff offer “genuine questions” about the resources. After all, the school is “happy to support classroom advocacy.”

If Thorn meant conservative staff, it’s just as bad: Who is the assistant principal to call out “conservatives” for genuine concerns over content?

When asked about the impetus for the microaggression warning, Thorn offered a nonsensical response.

“It is customary to include multiple points of view when sharing information with staff who will be instructing students,” she said.

I’m not sure what this is in reference to. There’s only one point of view expressed in the email. In fact, the perspective that the content isn’t appropriate for elementary students is shot down as a microaggression. And the expectation appears to be that teachers become advocates for pansexuals and non-binary people.

The problem with the email

The pre-emptive warning on microaggressions shames teachers who have good-faith concerns with the curriculum.

Elementary students should not be taught about pansexuality. Transgender issues are also inappropriate for most elementary-aged students. And to pretend someone can be without gender is especially problematic.

The microaggression warning effectively tells teachers that if they have concerns, their woke assistant principal will believe them to be bigots. They are not bigots for their good-faith concerns.

And the district’s response to me underscores their ideological bigotry. It’s not merely “conservative-minded” people who might want to hold off on these conversations until their children are older. They may not want woke progressive teachers offering these lessons, either.

Did you like this opinion piece? Then listen to the Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow @JasonRantz  on  Twitter,  Instagram, and Parler, and like me on Facebook

Most Popular