kathleen wynne

Liberals brought sex-ed backlash on themselves

It’s entirely reasonable for the province to introduce an updated sex-ed curriculum that speaks to students about gender identity, names body parts and talks to them in a matter-of-fact way about their sexuality.

Yet once again, parents were out Wednesday protesting the new curriculum at the constituency offices of Liberal MPPs and cabinet ministers, including Premier Kathleen Wynne.

Why? Well, the Liberals brought it on themselves.

  • Bert_1

    Is it reasonable, though? This whole business of “gender identity” is not based upon science but on the opinions of a few people. Since it isn’t scientifically proven and is more of a political issue, why are we teaching our children that this is established, proven fact? Don’t we owe it to them to teach them the truth?

    • El Martyachi

      Reasonable isn’t applicable. Neither is postmodern “science” really (see AGW).

      • Bert_1

        I wonder when – or if – true science will rear its head again? Or are we doomed to be accosted by these PC memes masquerading as science?

        • El Martyachi

          A lot of mass slaughter has happened in the name of “true science” and variations thereof. And pure reason is amoral.

          • Bert_1

            True but I can commit a mass slaughter in your name. That doesn’t mean that you ordered, authorized or even condoned it.

          • El Martyachi

            Nah, it’s qualitatively distinct. Reason from morality, that is. I know there’s at least one professional published philosopher here who’d do a better job than me of explaining why. But… short version.. you can reason your way through, say, genocide and be scientifically consistent. You’re doing it because it’s the most rational course of action. You’re not committing the act in the name of reason.

          • Bert_1

            Oh, you mean “Spockism”, right? 🙂

          • El Martyachi

            Nah even Spock had a moral code. “The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few” is a value judgement. What if the few are Einsteins on the verge of discovering zero-point energy and the many are .. Toronto Star columnists?

          • G

            What’s the justification for reason and logic? They tend to “work” in some fashion, sometimes, to some extent? Why should thinking, science, morality or anything for that matter, be accepted a priori? It presumably has to be desirable (not necessarily useful) to the person advocating it, and that would be its sole (and sufficient) justification.

          • El Martyachi

            Well hey, what’s the justification for justification then? Desirability?

          • Bert_1

            Or , you could argue that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is simple logic. Save the most and let the rest go.

          • Bert_1

            Or , you could argue that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is simple logic. Save the most and let the rest do.

          • El Martyachi

            And if you do ever decide to commit mass slaughter in my name, please allow me some time to compile a list.

          • ThomasB

            But being amoral is not such a bad thing ….

    • That’s sensible talk!

  • mauser 98

    ….tis for thee not for me
    “We respect that they can pray in their room and we don’t try to control it in any way,”
    “Muslim prayer rooms. He doesn’t know how girls are treated ”
    …Muslim students use the cafeteria for Friday prayers. Girls sit behind
    the boys, and girls who are on their period can’t attend at all

  • Fran800

    I read Christina Blizzard’s article. She seems to think Wynne’s sex curriculum is okay and the problem is that Wynne didn’t explain it carefully enough to the dumb masses. She seems to espouse the view that anything can be explained, which would mean that any brainwashing will work. To some extent she is right, which is frightening.

    The bedrock opposition to the sex ed curriculum is founded on some of its features. It would flat out disagree with these elements. First among these is gender fluidity. Does Christina really agree that gender is a social construct? This is about as unscientific as it gets, The distinction is sex, which is determined by DNA (and the human genome has been mapped) and the DNA difference is revealed in enormous phenotypical manifestations. There is nothing to support the bizarre notion that “gender”, is “assigned” at birth arbitrarily. If the phenotype is ambiguous, a DNA test will settle it immediately. But teaching that to elementary school children is simply brainwashing because they can’t possibly have the scientific knowledge to resist. Even teaching little kids in kindergarten about sexual body parts is just the thin edge of the wedge, softening them up as it were.

    • Bert_1

      Exactly! We are teaching our children too many things that are claimed as fact but have absolutely no scientific backup. It is a total whitewash.

      Of course,, it is even more frightening to even consider what the end game is.

  • Justin St.Denis

    I would have less of a problem with this whole curricular issue if the curriculum had not already been stripped of several ‘essentials” that are certain,y asimoortant if not more important than Benjamin Levin’s sex ed curriculum.

    The Liberals first error was not distancing themselves FAR FAR AWAY from Levin from the moment the child porn allegations were made. That not doing so would cost the Liberals in the medium/long term should have been a no-brainer. I have to wonder why the Liberals did not throw Levin under the bus. They have never hesitated to do so before with problematic party members. I suspect there are LOTS more pedophiles in government, and Benji can name them, provide their government email addresses and phone numbers.

    • Bert_1

      There is far too heavy an emphasis on the perverted.

      • Minicapt

        Not possible, unless one has an affinity for the perverted.


    • canminuteman

      I suspect they didn’t throw Levin under the bus because the tact they took was the cleanest way to get the story out of the news cycle. If they had tossed him it would have been in the news longer and some reporter might have been curious to look into it more and find the truth. I don’t claim know that thruth, but I think he is up to his neck in this.

    • WalterBannon

      I would have less of a problem with this whole issue if the entire liberal caucus was lined up against a wall and shot for treason without any trial.

      Then when that is over, I reserve the right to still have a problem with this issue. It is child abuse and grooming. “Liberals” are evil.

  • Clink9
  • WalterBannon

    Wynne is a pedophile enabler

  • The time to do something about the sex ed program was during the election.

    Now, the only recourse the parents have is to home-school.

    There are actually people who think Ben Levin’s involvement in this is no big deal.

    Swallow your own vomit when you think about that.