In part 5 of our series examining the contents of a special issue of the academic journal, Educational Researcher entitled, Trans Studies in K-12 Education we will learn how radical gender theory is inserted into classrooms via bureaucratic processes that are invisible to most parents. This not merely academic, folks. The writer of the article we will examine in this post wants to make school personnel more powerful than parents in matters of sexuality.
Just to recap, in Part 1 of this series we showed that the editors of the special issue make no secret of their hope of making the K-12 setting (and some of the contributors to the special issue even admit that they include Pre-K children in their campaign) the venue for the sexualization of instruction and for transforming the general atmosphere of K-12 education along transgenderist lines.
Part 2 and Part 3 discussed how the writers of the articles examined in those installments of our series tried to make a case for the importance of what they consider to be research in trans studies in the revolution they hope to effect in K-12 education. We saw in those parts that much of what the writers present as “research” is, for the most part, pro-transgenderism advocacy. Part 4 examined examples of pro-transgenderist pedagogical practices already in place in schools around the country that the author of the article applauded but which do damage to the children they are meant to help and render non “trans” children collateral damage in the process.
In Part 5 of this series, we will examine the use of what are known in educational parlance as “administrative guidance documents” and how they can be crafted by transgenderists and their allies to undermine traditional values and basic biological truth. These documents are usually entirely unknown to the general public and, therefore, to most parents.
Let’s take a look at what we can glean from the article entitled, A Starting Point: Gender, Hot Cognition, and Trans-Informed Administrative Guidance.
The writer tells us:
Trans-informed administrative guidance introduces concepts from trans studies to educational leaders… This paper includes areas of concern and suggestions as policymakers initiate gender reforms.
“Trans-informed” means the putting into practice of the tenets of radical gender theory and “gender reforms” means teaching students that gender is whatever anyone says it is. None of this is held to be the case by the vast majority of Americans, but it is being institutionalized in schools across the country by activist administrators and teachers. The author says of the transgenderist project:
gender-based reforms often necessitate changes in deeply held and culturally anchored biases
In other words, normal parents and families need to steamrolled and treated as irrelevant in the design and implementation of school policies that are deemed imperative by the transgenderist movement.
We learn how the transgenderists adroitly capitalize on their positions within the K-12 administrative state to further their aims, in this case by employing the tool of the “administrative guidance”:
Administrative guidance documents are one of the few existing district-level tools designed for gender-based policy implementation. Superintendents, principals, school boards, and other local leaders use guidance texts to translate broad policy messages into specific implementation practices
All the more reason for conservatives and all those who oppose turning schools into training academies for transgenderists to run for and serve on their local school boards.
the importance of creating and revising practical tools to disrupt gendered school structures. Because leaders have so few resources readily accessible, administrative guidance documents can play an outsized role when leaders seek out information to guide their work with transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-expansive youth
Note that none of this is about improving education for the benefit of all children. It is about disrupting education for the benefit of the transgenderist movement—which does a huge amount of harm to children who usually grow out of gender confusion if they are not “affirmed” as being of the opposite sex by activists.
Here is a telling passage in the article—the writer basically smears responsible, capable school personnel who resist the transgenderist juggernaut. She suggests that they if they don’t agree with her, they are cognitively impaired:
the cognitive psychology literature on bias helps explain why inclusive policy reforms with general or no implementation guidance provoke hot cognition, a strong emotional and physiological response contributing to PK–12 leaders’ decision-making and resistance to reforms
In other words, normal people who believe that there are two sexes and two sexes only (male and female) need to be pressured to conform to edicts developed well out of the public eye. The author is advocating a form of brain-washing:
The cognitive approach provides insight into the amount of information and specificity needed to change an individual’s existing gender beliefs and combat bias.
Just so you know—if you are concerned that a tomboy is being pounced on by pro-transgenderism school personnel (like school psychologists) as a child in need of “gender affirmation” (as opposed to a little girl who simply likes playing with toy airplanes) you are have reason to be—administrators are being pressured to incentivize such practices in schools:
Guidance should create to space for PK–12 administrators to learn more about gender and promote structural gender-based reforms in the local context.
The writer (like her fellow contributors to the special issue) wants to transform K-12 education along radical gender ideological lines. But she goes even further than her peers by outright suggesting that hiring practices and professional development courses and trainings be tailored to favor those in the transgenderist movement. This should alarm parents (and non-parent taxpayers) across the country:
Administrative guidance documents concerning transgender students explain why and how administrators should reform educational procedures and practices to create a better learning environment for transgender students. This work includes meeting with students and guardians to understand impediments to student well-being in school, initiating changes in administrative forms (e.g., official documents containing gender markers and names), incorporating inclusive-curricular reforms, selecting the appropriate leadership teams and professional development to engage teachers and staff in reforming gendered practices.
Again, the word “reforming” means disrupting—which means transforming schools so that they adhere to transgenderist precepts.
Not only does the writer make clear that she regards educators who resist turning schools into platforms for radical gender ideology as ignoramuses who need to be re-educated and cured of their supposed cognitive inability to grasp that pressuring children to abandon their actual sex in favor of the opposite one or some invented one such as “nonbinary” benefits children—she seeks to undermine the shared interest conscientious teachers and loving parents have in jointly resisting the transgenderist campaign to sexualize schools:
Teachers initially justified their hesitation to include gender and sexual diversity topics in their curriculum by questioning the appropriateness of the content and citing parental pushback.
Imagine that—teachers who want to focus on coursework (e.g., classes devoted to improving math and reading skills) and parents who “push back” at those who want to force their daughters to pretend that troubled boys are actually girls.
Again, note the blatant desire of the author to brainwash professional educators and force them to adopt radical gender ideology:
Researchers examining motivated reasoners and bias suggest most individuals have an affective tipping point…Humans reach this tipping point, which may differ across individuals, when presented with enough specific evidence that contradicts existing beliefs and alternative methods to solve social problems. How much additional information administrators and teachers will need to make sense of policy reforms depends on a variety of factors, which include the local political context, existing organizational norms, the administrators’ self-image, and life paths
By targeting leaders’ understanding of policy reforms, the guidance documents have the potential to influence superintendents’, principals’, and other district-level student services administrators’ decisions about resource allocation, curricular alignment, professional development, instructional practices, and school goals
There is some hope for countervailing pressures (as we have seen in the past year or so) from conservatives and others opposed to radical gender ideology who have managed to make their voices heard at the school board and state legislative levels:
the ability to defer to higher legislative authorities may set the stage for administrators’ openness to working with grassroots activists and give leaders the leverage needed to change organizational practices
In these cases, the grassroots activists have not been what the author had in mind. She prefers indoctrination from those on the left:
Part of this process includes educating school community members about cisnormativity, privilege, and interlocking systems of oppression in order to start conversations about reforming administrative systems
Note the quasi-Maoist language about “educating” those who do not assume that children going through phases of being confused about gender matters (which is being exacerbated by the transgenderist movement) are being oppressed and who do not want to turn K-12 settings into radical gender theory-friendly political battlegrounds.
Also, note how the author wants to neuter teacher authority and hand schools over to the most troubled student populations:
Trans-informed administrative guidance texts center the student as the arbiter of their identity and student agency as the primary decision-maker in how the student should move through educational spaces
Thus, a student should be allowed to bully teachers into going along with the student’s preferred pronouns, no matter how ridiculous that is and how immoral it is to force other people to go along with another person’s disturbed gender-related fantasies.
If you think I am exaggerating by using the term “Maoist” to characterize what this writer is advocating, please note the totalitarian tone of this passage:
Policy adoption and the initial implementation process is only the start of an iterative process of continuous reflection and improvement needed to disrupt gender norms. Indeed, most educational reforms are more likely to be successful when they are paired with multiple tools for implementation and enforcement…Guidance could help leaders struggling to adjust to gender-based reforms by broadening their understanding of gender and gender oppression within their institutions.
That is really disturbing and that is what this person wants to subject K-12 educators to.
Like all of the articles in the special issue, this one equates “reform” with the wholesale adoption of radical gender ideology—and again, note that it would apply even at the pre-kindergarten level:
PK–12 district administrators first need to have a better understanding of gender in order to adapt their administrative practices to a student body that increasingly identifies as transgender and nonbinary
This passage "a student body that increasingly identifies as transgender and nonbinary" should send alarm bells ringing across the political spectrum. The very concepts of masculinity and femininity are being trashed and children turned into "nonbinary" blobs. That feminists are not screaming from the rooftops to protest the obliteration of female identity is a scandal and a moral and intellectual failure of epic proportions. They are betraying little girls for fear of being cancelled by the transgenderists or are so intent on opposing the "patriarchy" that they are willing to welcome the transgenderists into their misguided big tent leftism.
Even more disturbing is the writer’s championing of policies designed to undermine parental rights and to create climates in which parents who oppose attempts to “affirm” their children in mistaken notions about their biological sex are treated as adversaries of their own children. This is outrageous and these radical notions are being promulgated in a supposedly reputable academic journal:
Mandates to involve parents/guardians in student access decisions bar some students from support and could force administrators to disclose students’ identities to parents/guardians. Mandating involvement leads to additional harm for students from unsupportive families and prevents students from accessing supports… In the absence of family support, gender-affirming school climates may be essential to safeguarding student engagement
This is absolute madness. The idea that schools would conceal from parents that their son is, for example, pretending to be a girl at school and that schools have some kind of right to hide such vital information from parents deemed “unsupportive” is shocking and bizarre. The author regards “family support” as being exclusively that which favors transgenderism for the child involved.
The writer tries to make it seem that an educator has some professional obligation to become a proponent in the workplace of radical gender ideology and that those who decline to do so are “irrational”:
couching gender reforms as an obligation of their professional role encouraged administrators to use a more rational, evidence-based decision-making process (i.e., logical cognition)
The author is keen on administrative guidance documents because, apparently, they grant rights to the those who claim that they are transgender at the expense of the rights of everyone else (such as those the transgenderists dub, “cisgender”):
caveats about cisgender privacy and religious freedom contribute to a lack of clarity about the intent of policy protections. Including language about cisgender privacy and religious freedom implies the rights of other students could be compromised in reforming gendered school processes. This argument undermines the extension of discrimination protections to transgender populations when federal law does not explicitly protect gender identity.
She is of the view that is you force enough propaganda down other people’s throats, they will abandon their belief in basics of human biology:
Like other administrative documents providing procedural guidance for school leaders, administrative guidance concerning transgender and nonbinary students can be instructive, shaping beliefs and practices
Note that the word “parents” does not appear here:
Policymakers should consider using lessons from both trans studies and organizational studies to craft the language of guidance texts. In future iterations of these documents, local school boards and district leaders could consider collaborating with trans studies scholars, trans activists, and students when writing guidance documents. This collaboration and co-designing structural reforms depend upon consensus-building, skill-building, and an anti-authoritarian approach firmly rooted in the evidence from organizational studies, trans studies, and cognitive psychology.
This article should be read and noted by every parent of a child in K-12 education. It is clear evidence of the hostility that the transgenderist contributors (I am not going to dignify the writer of this article with the word “scholar”) to the special issue of Educational Researcher have for the courageous parents who dare to stand up to the assault of the transgenderist movement on K-12 education.
My advice to parents concerned about the rise of radical gender ideology is to demand open discussion at school board meetings of recent or proposed “administrative guidance” documents and read them line by line. Dangers to your lurk children and to your parental rights lurk in such documents.