The need for parental veto arises when there is an attempt to indoctrinate students with counter-values that are significantly different from traditional values.
Sex education in schools
I want to start with a biographical anecdote as a means of expressing how it has evolved sex education From my childhood (I am currently 69 years old)((I am checking this post on September 3, 2023, therefore, 72 years old)) in a rural environment, to the present day.
The younger boys, and only the older ones, would socialize with the older boys in small groups. We would hide among the olive and orange groves on the outskirts of my village. There, following a whole ritual, the older boys would "instruct" us in what was "pubertal sexuality." They proudly showed us the younger boys the first secondary sexual characteristics their bodies were developing (penis growth, pubic hair, and the first intentionally induced erections). We younger boys watched with wide eyes and envy, believing all the stories they told us about this extraordinary natural event and the new and fantastic possibilities that opened up in sexual experiences with the girls around us—possibilities more fantastical than real, but which thrilled us as much as we enjoyed hearing about them. This activity was carried out with the feeling that we were doing something forbidden, something sinful. For this reason, we kept it a complete secret. No one knew about these activities.
When the groups were mixed, despite the understandable resistance of those convinced they were committing a mortal sin and that their parents would punish them if they found out, we explored each other and were surprised to see how some girls in the group had no secondary sexual characteristics, while others were developing breasts and showing the first signs of puberty. We younger boys envied the older ones and did everything they told us to speed up our own development. I remember one recommendation was to rub a piece of bacon rind on our pubic area and armpits to make our hair grow faster. It was all a lie, but it relieved us to think it was true because it would accelerate our own development.
As we grew up, our sexual activity was limited to kissing and caressing those parts of our bodies that gave us pleasure. Penetrative intercourse was absolutely forbidden, and both we and the girls accepted this. Virginity held immense social value, so no teenage girl risked losing it. When it happened, it caused trauma with unpredictable personal consequences.
Today, schools teach aspects of sexual development that we didn't have access to. Students acquire more objective knowledge and are encouraged to grow up sexually without the guilt we experienced. They also learn about the risks associated with certain sexual activities: unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, hygiene related to sexual activity, etc. In this sense, I believe that while the developmental and preventative aspects of sexuality and its negative social consequences are addressed very well, the affective-relational dimension of sexual activity is not fully appreciated. Some teachers even try to discredit something as fundamental and formative of personality and the development of empathy in adolescence as the connection between sexuality and emotion. They disparagingly call it "romantic love," unaware that it is one of the most beautiful emotional and social experiences of adolescence. Ultimately, I believe that technique and physiology must be accompanied by the other great pillar that supports sexuality as a privileged instrument of sociability. Namely, daydreaming, fantasy, and feeling reciprocated and loved, not just an object of desire.
Therefore, today schools teach much more complete and objective knowledge than that which was acquired anonymously and always mediated by the feeling of guilt derived from a Catholic mentality, now overcome.
So why the "Pin" or Parental Veto?
Because through sex education, ideological content is being introduced that a large proportion of parents disagree with. Teaching about sexuality is not the same as teaching math, physics, or geography. These are objective subjects with which 100% of parents will agree. They are what they are, here and everywhere. However, there are other subjects that lend themselves more easily to partisan use, such as history. An example of indoctrination throughout history We have it in some Autonomous Communities. Can teaching nutrition be positive for students? Everyone would agree that it is. Telling teenagers that the best way to eat is to be strict or ethical veganNo. Simply because there is no conclusive scientific research that has demonstrated this, and, on the contrary, in puberty and early adolescence it can be an important factor. risk factor for Eating Disorders.
Then, What specific problems does affective/sexual education present that lead some parents and political parties to demand parental veto?As we all know, the ideological foundation on which the content is based is gender ideology or perspective. And what are the controversial aspects of this gender perspective?. In summary, the following:
- The fact that biological sex is XX (male) or XY (female) has no influence on an individual's sexuality. What determines being male or female is culture. Therefore, biological sex is irrelevant, being The important thing is the gender.
- If gender is a culturally determined construct, each individual will be able to freely choose your gender: male, female, agender, transgender, etc. Spain recognizes 37 gender types and 10 sexual orientations. The UN recognizes 110 different genders.
- Sexuality has been the great repressed element of cultureTherefore, it is essential to completely free her from childhood. There are no limits, neither in the ways it is expressed, nor in the age at which it can be practiced.. Any limit will be considered an authoritarian intrusion on the child, adolescent, or adult. In this sense, H. Marcuse and his are followed "Eros and Civilization" and S. Freud and his "Civilization and its Discontents". The most important thing about sexuality is the pleasure it produces. We have to forget about his reproductive aspectThis is precisely a great trap that heteropatriarchy has set for women to subjugate them throughout history.
- The family, as it has been understood until now, needs to be "deconstructed". since it has served to support the enslavement of women. It has adopted Marxist theories. (F. Engels: «The origin of the family, private property and the State") and anti-psychiatric (D. Cooper: "The Death of the Family") defended during the 60s and 70s. Families that do not show support for this new ideology will be labeled retrograde, sexist and irresponsibleIt even gets to the point where "pathologize" with any of the thousands of newly created phobiasFaced with a family as toxic as the one they describe, and in defense of the Children's RightsIt would be appropriate to withdraw custody or guardianship on behalf of «"The sacred best interests of the child."
- Act quickly. transmute traditional moral valuesTo achieve this, the priority is to eliminate one of its most significant sources: the Catholic Church. Although, strategically, the aim is to eliminate any creed that does not align with gender ideology. To achieve this, We must invade social media, the media, schools, and even infiltrate the Catholic Church itself with messages that support the gender perspective.. Any opposition or criticism must be silenced, disqualified, and treated as retrograde, fascist, or an enemy of progress.
- Act quickly. change language so that it, in turn, modifies our mental schemes and makes us think as universal truth what is nothing more than a purely ideological construction, like any other, with absolutely known theoretical sources.
And this is the reason for the dispute, between supporters and detractorswhich has been developing these days as a consequence of parental veto. Parents who are against the gender perspective argue that the Spanish Constitution and Human Rights It protects the freedom of parents to choose whether their children are educated from a gender perspective or not. The advocates of the gender perspective, They argue that parents who do not accept this ideology are clearly in favor of discrimination against homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. Its defenders of the oppression of women, They are labeled as fundamentalist Catholics, claiming that "parental consent" is an outrage, that they oppose freedom of education, that they are far-right, and subjected to thousands of derogatory terms designed to make them feel guilty, bad parents, and bad citizens. Ultimately, they are effectively silenced through discrediting their parenting. In some countries, such as Canada and Sweden, they even risk losing custody of their children.
This is the reality brewing these days. A battle that parents who are clear that they are the ones who decide how to raise their children are about to lose.1
That's how I see it. Ultimately, just another opinion.
- A war that, since the implementation of the Celaa Law, they have already lost [↩]
