Editor:
Re: Speaking out for sexual identities, April 25 editorial; PAN online question, April 27 to May 3.
Your question – “Is teaching acceptance of more than two ‘gender identities’ akin to child abuse?” – should be expanded to include: “…or is proselytizing impressionable young minds with religious doctrine akin to child abuse?”
Tolerance and acceptance versus brainwashing and eternal damnation? I hope rationality prevails.
Emile Fuchs, Surrey
• • •
Yes, there are two sides to the B.C. SOGI curriculum: a wrong side and a right side.
On one side, you have biblical morality which comes from our ignorant and superstitious past, written by men who had no knowledge of how the natural world worked so they invented a god with all the worst of their own personalities rolled up into their creation.
On the other, you have ‘social justice,’ which comes from science, from advances in human relations, from observation, from understanding that human sexuality is complex. It comes from human rights, women’s rights, equality rights – all things that the fundamentalists still oppose as they fight a desperate, losing battle with the modern world.
I have no problem supporting the SOGI curriculum, as it is the right thing to do if you support ‘social justice,’ basic human decency, acceptance of reality and the truth of science from genetics to behavioural science.
These fundamentalist parents are demanding the right to pass on their own warped ideas of ‘biblical morality’ to a world that no longer believes that the earth is flat.
Robert T. Rock, Mission
• • •
What a happy feeling to read that a baby boy was born in the Royal family.
I tasted those words many times. Baby boy, baby boy. Why? Because it is the most natural thing to say so. Boy is boy and girl is girl.
Maybe politically correct would be: Baby was born. Because nobody can be sure if the baby is boy or girl or something else. What a mess.
Leevi Myyra, White Rock
