The entire meeting can be viewed HERE, but you can fast forward to the public comments which is what this post is about. This is my commentary on the citizen speakers’ commentary.

One of the earliest speakers’ message was rather incoherent, but she touted the “people should be free to love who they love” argument or something along those lines.

But sexuality is not about love. I really wish people would stop equating sexuality with love. They are not the same thing at all. Sexuality is the aspect of a person that involves sexual thoughts and feelings, including what a person finds to be erotic in other people or even in themselves. Love is a self-sacrificing act of will. Agape. Caritas. Charity. Brotherhood of humanity.

The lady was very upset that a Virginia delegate said it would be a bad thing for a transgender teacher to teach a kindergarten class because being transgender is a mental disorder.

She called this “misinformation” and “hate.”

Something tells me, though, that she believes transgender treatments like hormone therapy and genital surgery and breast surgery should be covered under health insurance as a necessary medical treatment for the psychological disorder of gender dysphoria. For if being transgender is not a disorder, then such treatments are clearly elective and should not be covered under health insurance programs any more than any other cosmetic elective surgery would be.

You can’t have it both ways.

Either being transgender is a disorder requiring transition as a treatment, or it is not a disorder and everything the person does is a CHOICE.

Pick one, people.

Another speaker said that LGBT teachers should have the right to bring their partners to school functions as straight teachers do. I don’t remember ever seeing my kids’ teachers (or my own teachers when I attended school) bringing partners or spouses to school functions, but maybe I never noticed. It’s not like teachers were engaging in public displays of affection that would indicate that the person sitting next to them on the bleachers was a sexual partner.

Another man said that straight teachers have no problem talking about their spouses and kids at school, but gay teachers cannot do so without fear of retribution. He said that as a gay man, he wishes that there were openly gay teachers while he was in school. Apparently he had to figure out how to be a gay man through trial and error whereas if there had been an openly gay teacher he would not have made so many mistakes because he would have received guidance. What kind of guidance is never explained.

One high school girl described a transgender teen at her school who is going through transition and feels unsafe because when “he” (?) walks down the halls, he gets mean looks and no one wants to touch him. She said that there needs to be more protection.

What it sounds like to me is that LGBT students are not under any disproportionate threat of violence compared to other students, but rather that they feel like outcasts because of how other students react to their self-expression, appearance and behavior.

A self-described “pansexual” high school girl complained that the school board “does nothing for us” and offers no protection. She said that gay boys should be able to hug and kiss their boyfriends in the school hallways. She said that they don’t because they are afraid to be judged.

Which I took to mean that if someone were to express disgust or displeasure at same-sex public displays of sexual affection, she would want that person to be punished.

The girl said “I can’t even say that I am pansexual because who knows what somebody else might say?” Except she just did. At a publicized school board meeting where the public comment period is streamed online for everyone to see.

There was only one speaker who spoke out against changing the LCPS policy regarding sexuality and gender identity. Here is his statement in its entirety:

Good evening. There are some who would like to change the LCPS 7014 employment policy and/or students rights and responsibilities to include more specific language. It is felt current language may allow for discrimination, harassment, bullying of some specific groups not listed.

Absolutely none should suffer harassment or discrimination. We should all respect one another. We cannot make others accept choices others make, but we can teach as parents, guardians, educators, employers, leaders to respect people’s choices. This Thursday you’re all sponsoring a training on this topic. No one wants to be harassed, but unfortunately there are those who enjoy harassing others. Even though there are laws and rules, they will be broken–just look at the news today.

We commend your wisdom to keep your policies and rules all-inclusive with generalized format as tomorrow will bring new groups. Other boards, cities, and states have added such language and will have to keep adding more in due time. It’s like stating, “You can’t steal oranges and apples, so it’s okay to steal bananas?” But stating “Do not steal” includes not just fruit but everything else. Keep it simple will keep its strength timeless and inclusive. Another example: in the Bible, Christ states, “That whoever believes in me will not perish but have everlasting life.” “Whoever” is a general term, a term to be all-inclusive. It does not say only a certain color of skin, hair, culture, race, sexual identity, ethnicity, lifestyle–just simply “whoever.” All inclusive. Timeless.

Policy 7014 unfortunately has thirteen characteristics in addition to and any other characteristic provided by law. This includes sexual identity, but since it’s not specifically listed is why the pressure to add specific verbiage. If the policy did not list thirteen specifics, it would not be an issue. The policy should read: “The purpose of this policy is to establish methods for resolving complaints arising from alleged harassment or discrimination in any form.” Period. That’s it. No specific language is required for specific groups, race, sexual identity, ethnicity, and on.”

The entire meeting can be viewed HERE, but you can fast forward to the public comments which is what this post is about. This is my commentary on the citizen speakers’ commentary.

One speaker, a high school boy, said that school needs to be a place of LGBT self-expression, implying that right now it is not, and I couldn’t help but think, “What does he mean by that?”  What forms of self-expression are simply too dangerous for students to make in Loudoun County today? He never provided an example. He just used the word fear multiple times. He wanted the school board to understand that the reason so few GSA (Gender Sexuality Alliance) members were willing to speak before the board was because they were afraid.

Loudoun already has a comprehensive anti-bullying policy in place. Why certain reasons for bullying should be held up as worse than others doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Is it worse to bully someone for gender nonconformity than it is to bully someone for being overweight? I don’t think there should be a hierarchy. All bullying is awful.

I found it to be atrocious that during the same public comment period an LCPS employee equated sexuality with race and equated racial segregation with current anti-discrimination policies. I really wish an example had been provided: what sort of expression of sexuality can a teacher not make today that he could safely make under a new policy? Why should students even be thinking about their teachers’ sexuality anyway? How is this appropriate in a public school setting? Students attend school for an education, not to learn what or who teachers find sexually attractive.

Another speaker, a mother of a transgender student, suggested purposely recruiting LGBT teachers. We should recruit teachers based on their qualifications, NOT on what they do in their bedrooms or what their gender identity is. Does LCPS purposely recruit Methodist teachers to support those kids who identify as Methodist? No, of course not. Sexuality is just one part of any given student’s identity. Why the laser-like focus on this and this alone? It’s a huge red flag.

She was talking out of both sides of her mouth.

On one hand, a teacher’s sexuality has no real importance when it comes to hiring: “Without expanding our nondiscrimination policy, LCPS is limiting our ability to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers who happen to be LGBT,” she said.

who happen to be

Meaning it’s a side issue. Something that shouldn’t matter.

And yet, seconds earlier she’d argued that LGBT students desperately NEED to see teachers who openly express similar sexualities, and she argued for purposeful recruitment of teachers based on their sexuality and/or transgender identity.

Later a lesbian high school student said that it is important for youths to be able to connect with adults at schools on LGBT issues. Youths should not be connecting with adults based on shared sexuality at school. This is HIGHLY inappropriate and puts vulnerable students into potentially harmful situations and also puts teachers into difficult positions that can be easily misconstrued as predatory.

She also said that LGBT students want an “older mentor who relates to our experiences.” Similar sexual attractions now equate to shared experience? Do these kids have ANYTHING else about their identity that they can connect with teachers on? Ethnicity? Biological sex? Economic class? Religion? Shared academic interests and hobbies? Is sexuality the ONLY thing that matters to these students? I keep seeing red flags all over the place. These are KIDS. Most school-aged kids are below the age of consent for sexual activity. So why is it so important for kids to be exposed to sexuality, especially that of adults, in school?

Another high school boy was able to list some specific examples of why he thinks LGBT needed special protections: some students use gay slurs amongst each other in a friendly joking manner, but by doing so they normalize the view of LGBT as being abnormal; and gay teachers can’t put photos of their partners on their desks or talk about their sexuality with students. But that was basically the extent of it.

An eighth grade girl who recently “discovered” that she is a lesbian expressed the opinion that people shouldn’t have the right to express their opinions about sexualities because it makes the school environment unwelcoming. This was a similar argument coming from other speakers.

From what I could glean, these speakers were interested in one thing: shutting people up. They don’t want it to be possible for anyone in the LCPS system, whether an employee or a student, to have any sort of commentary on LGBT sexuality and expression that could be considered critical or negative, because criticism or negativity from some individuals leads to all LGBT students feeling “unwelcome” and “unsafe.”

Time for some truth bombs. One of the nastiest things political activists will do is try to shame people by associating their lack of pro-____ activism with violence against ____ people.

This headline is a huge clue about the grand manipulation that the Daily Beast is attempting to pull off on naive readers: “the Ugly Lie of ‘Acceptance’.”

Immediately, readers who believe themselves to be accepting of transgender people are being told that it’s not good enough.

The headline mentions the “transgender murder rate.” Of course, no rate is actually provided in the article. Just the number “four.” Four transgender people killed in 2018, and it isn’t clear that they were killed BECAUSE they were transgender. According to the article, last year’s tally was 28. And yes, the author of the article went from using the word “rate” to the word “tally.” This may just be a math deficit on the part of the author. Or a deliberate obfuscation.

Remember, no rate is actually ever provided. But we can come up with one because the author of the article (who is transgender) says there are 1.4 million transgender people in America.

Do you know what the murder rate for transgender people was in 2017? All you need to do is divide 28 by 1.4 million. …. 0.002%

If the current rate of 2018 continues (4 deaths every 6 weeks), then we are looking at a total of 35 murders of transgender individuals for the entire year.  So, that becomes 0.0025%. This would clearly be an elevated rate, but we can also predict that the number of people who identify as transgender will also increase (since it consistently has over the years), and at least proportionate to the increased murder rate.

So, let’s see what the author tries to do to guilt these readers into blaming themselves for the deaths of these individuals….

The author says that people who date transgender people often feel shame about the relationship and that this shame propels them to be violent towards their transgender partners. No evidence is provided to justify making such a claim: that shame makes men kill the transgender-identified males they sleep with.

The author then moves on to talk about transgender people being unemployed, poor, and not being able to use opposite-sex bathrooms. And then says something about the military ban.

The rest of the article isn’t even worth commenting on.

And yet you are supposed to come away from it feeling ashamed that you are a part of the reason why transgender people are in such mortal peril at the hands of violent transphobes.

But let me let you in on a little secret—the murder rate for men is over 3% and for women is 1%. Transgender people? 0.002%. Let that soak in. Transgender people are LESS LIKELY to be killed than anyone else in America (and in the world, for that matter).

So, why are you feeling guilty for not DOING ENOUGH? Stop, and ask yourself why such a group would need to lie so blatantly if what they are demanding is perfectly reasonable?