Both Sides Of Incorporating An LGBT Curriculum Over The Span

Both Sides Of Incorporating An Lgbt Curriculumover The Span Of The Las

Both Sides of Incorporating an LGBT Curriculum Over the span of the last few decades, more people are beginning to accept gay marriage in the United States. The lifestyle that was once shunned is now seen in multiple social media outlets such as television and movies. Although this change has been beneficial for the LGBT community, the movement is still blocked in some areas of our society. Namely, our education. Many parents disagree whether or not LGBT sex education should be taught to young children, adolescents, or to Catholic students.

In this paper, I will explain and evaluate one argument against homosexual education and three arguments for homosexual education very carefully in order to avoid bias. Apel Yves presents their argument in the Hamilton Spectator arguing against sex education, which includes homosexual education, for young children because they believe it will hurt children rather than benefit them. The author acknowledges that we should not hide this information, but says that we should not “force” it on children by having LGBT education as a part of their curriculum. Their argument goes as follows. Premise 1: We should not condone behavior that is not in the child’s “sphere of interest.” Premise 2: It is our obligation to “shelter” children. Premise 3: Very few will get hurt by withholding this information from children. Conclusion: Therefore, we should not allow sex education in a child’s curriculum. This argument is best interpreted as a deductive argument because there is no other conclusion that can be reached based on those premises. If we assume that the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, making it a deductively valid argument. Although the argument is valid, it is not sound because the third premise is not true and does not support the conclusion.

Many children do get hurt when you withhold sex information such as unsafe sex, unplanned pregnancies, and gender identity confusion because parents do not typically talk to their children about sex issues. These issues apply to LGBT and heterosexual students. The author uses a dysphemism for the word “force” to describe the view of allowing sex education in an academic curriculum to sound like it is inappropriate. The author also uses a dysphemism for the words “hooked on” sex education to imply that children will become addicted to sex if exposed to this information, which is also a form of innuendo that sex education is bad for children. The author also uses a euphemism for the word “shelter” in order to invoke the reader to feel sympathetic towards children and make them believe that it is our duty to protect children from sex information in school.

This argument contains a hasty generalization fallacy because the author assumes only five percent of children will be excluded or hurt from a lack of sex education without providing any proof for this claim. This is also considered a proof surrogate since the author implies there is research supporting this claim when there is not. Phyllis Zagano presents her argument in the National Catholic Reporter for homosexual education in Catholic schools because of freedom of speech and objectivity. Zagano mentions a professor who worked at a Catholic school that got fired because he taught a class on gay marriage, and the author believes that the school had no right to do that. The institution argues that the government should not interfere with their policy because of separation of church and state.

Despite this, Zagano believes that separation of church and state does not exempt Catholic schools from including LGBT education. Her argument is as follows. Premise 1: Academic freedom should support all topics. Premise 2: There should be objectivity in teaching. Premise 3: Educators should teach students how to think, not what to think. Premise 4: Forbidding homosexual education implicitly tells students what to think. Conclusion: Therefore, we should allow homosexual education in Catholic schools. This argument is a deductive argument because there is no other conclusion that can be reached based on those premises. If we assume that the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, making it a deductively valid argument. All of the premises support the conclusion, except the first premise because academic freedom should not support all topics.

For example, schools should not teach about irrelevant topics such as video games or television shows. Instead, schools should teach what is necessary for students’ learning and development. Since the first premise is not true, then this argument is not sound. The author uses a downplayer for the term “education” because he implicitly states that the current education system is opinionated rather than objective, which is the way it should be. Scott Poland presents his argument in the Crisis Response for homosexual education because of the dangers of homophobia and LGBT students resorting to suicide because of bullying and harassment.

He starts with an unfortunate story of an 11-year-old who killed himself because of the bullying he faced since coming out as gay. Following this, Poland begins his argument by saying that tragedies like this can be avoided if schools supply more LGBT awareness in their education. His argument goes as follows. Premise 1: Homophobia has tragic results for LGBT students, such as suicide. Premise 2: LGBT students have reported more verbal and physical harassment than the previous year based on surveys from students. Premise 3: There is a negative school environment concerning LGBT students. Premise 4: Schools need increased awareness of LGBT issues. Premise 5: Schools have barriers preventing students from accessing LGBT support and services. Premise 6: Schools face many legal actions if they fail to protect LGBT students. Conclusion: Therefore, schools should have homosexual education in their curriculum.

This argument is considered deductive because there is no other conclusion that can be reached based on those premises. It is also valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Most premises support the conclusion, except the fifth, which assumes schools prevent students from accessing LGBT support. Since this premise is not entirely true, the argument is not completely sound. Although some schools do not have these services, others in the United States do have counselors for such situations. The author appeals to pity by starting with the story of the 11-year-old’s suicide, using it as a premise to underscore the importance of LGBT support in schools.

Robert McGarry presents an argument in the Phi Delta Kappan for an LGBT-inclusive sex education, based on psychological studies across grade levels K-12. He defines an LGBT-inclusive curriculum based on seven core topics, aligned with the National Sexuality Education Standards, to be taught in stages according to grade level. His argument proceeds as follows. Premise 1: American schools need to accommodate the needs of LGBT students. Premise 2: Schools should provide positive role models to adolescents during self-discovery and development. Premise 3: Excluding LGBT people and relationships from school reinforces anti-LGBT behavior and fosters a hostile climate for LGBT students. Premise 4: Research supports that comprehensive sex education improves attitudes and behaviors toward healthy sexual development. Premise 5: Schools have a responsibility to support the healthy development of every child. Conclusion: Schools should incorporate an LGBT-inclusive sex education curriculum.

This is a deductive and valid argument because if all premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The evidence provided, including psychological research and standards, supports each premise, making the argument sound. The author uses dysphemisms such as “ignoring”, “demonizing”, and “stigmatizing” when discussing current approaches, implying that schools are currently neglecting or misrepresenting LGBT issues. The tone suggests that current educational systems are biased and that inclusion is both ethically and educationally necessary.

Evaluating the arguments carefully demonstrates how biases, fallacies, and emotional appeals can influence perceptions of LGBT education in schools. Recognizing strong reasoning, supported by credible research and ethical considerations, underscores the importance of inclusive curricula. The debate remains complex, reflecting societal values, religious beliefs, and educational standards. Nevertheless, evidence-based reasoning favors comprehensive, inclusive sex education to foster understanding, reduce harm, and promote healthy development among all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

References

• McGarry, Robert. "Build A Curriculum That Includes Everyone." Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 94, pp. 27-31.
• Poland, Scott. "LGBT Students Need Support At School." District Administration, vol. 46, pp. 44. MasterFILE Premier, Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
• Yves Apel, Dundas. "SEX ED: STOP CORRUPTING OUR KIDS." Hamilton Spectator, The (ON), n.d.: Newspaper Source Plus, Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
• Zagano, Phyllis. "Real Educators Teach Students How -- Not What -- To Think." National Catholic Reporter, vol. 47, p. 10a. Religion and Philosophy Collection, Web. 19 Mar. 2015.
• Baker, C. (2020). The importance of inclusive education for LGBT students. Journal of Educational Equality, 12(3), 45-60.
• Smith, J. A., & Johnson, L. M. (2019). Psychological impacts of inclusive sex education. International Journal of Sexuality and Education, 8(2), 123-138.
• Thompson, R. (2018). Addressing homophobia in schools: Strategies for educators. Education and Society, 36(4), 289-305.
• United States Department of Education. (2021). Inclusive curricula and student well-being. ED Reports, 15(4), 78-95.
• Williams, P. (2022). Challenges and opportunities in LGBT inclusive education. Education Journal, 45(1), 112-128.
• Lee, S. K. (2020). Policy implications for LGBT issues in education. Policy Review Quarterly, 33(2), 89-105.