Skip to content

Rhode Island Schools Forbid Gender, New York Schools Sneak Drugs To Students

No more shall the Cranston, Rhode Island public schools allow the ignominy of father-daughter dances. The horrible public spectacle of mother-son outings shall cease forthwith! Any reliance of gender—that awful, culturally derived artifact—is hereafter banned.

Yes, the ACLU—champion of the Exceptionally Nervous, facilitator to the Perpetually Outraged, suer of the Least Suspecting–has won for us another glorious civil rights victory!

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU and cause of the glad tidings, explained to us, “Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella.” This being true, and it being implied that he, Brown, does not share that same dream, the legal brain reasoned that none shall ever consider it.

He magnanimously allowed that Rhode Island may “remain free to hold family dances and other events, but the time has long since passed for public school resources to encourage stereotyping from the days of Ozzie and Harriet.” Heretofore, father-daughter dances have been a scourge, an affront to all right-thinking people who are repelled at calling the man that sired his genetic offspring a “father” and the offspring itself a “daughter.” After Brown, we have learned a better way.

How did the glass-slipperless counselor hit upon the idea of disparaging father-daughter, mother-son pair ups? He, and not the school, received a (one) complaint from a “single mother.” About this he said, “The woman’s daughter had no father in her life so she was precluded from attending the father-daughter dance.” Brown wept.

And then threatened to sue. If one pre-woman doesn’t have a father, then none do, he reasoned. Or at least, none should be so gauche as to mention they do.

Yet in his earnestness, this suited interpreter of culture, when telling us of the complaint, has evidently forgotten that the words mother and daughter reek of gender specificity. Once he becomes aware of this misstep, he will surely correct it—and also lead the fight against the use of such charged, biased words.

Meanwhile, back in the city, the New York Board of Education decided it would ban sodas over 20 ounces. No, wait: that was a different branch of this most beneficent government. The schools will hand out “free” birth prevention drugs, “morning after” pills in the lingo, for those underage, ineligible-to-vote pre-women who have, through no fault of their own, had mornings after.

The best news is that the parents of these children are not to find out about the drugs. That would be wrong, sayeth the government. The government has the idea—it is full of experts, certified, degree-holding experts—that it knows better than parents what is best for the pre-women.

Sure, parents are allowed to “opt out” of having their children given drugs, but only if they can discover the way of doing so on their own, it not being immediately obvious. Not all are pleased with this new policy.

“We can’t give out a Tylenol without a doctor’s order,” said a school staffer. “Why should we give out hormonal preparations with far more serious possible side effects, such as blood clots and hypertension?”

Because, my dear, side effects in abortions and caused by birth prevention drugs, are like gender in Rhode Island schools: they shall not be mentioned. Activist figure that if these words are proscribed, then their referents do not exist. Ban the phrase “side effects” and therefore none exist. Forbid “gender” and biological sex disappears.

Will the Doctrine of Unintended Consequences strike in RI and NY? Could the banning of father-daughter dances and the free and secretive use of birth prevention have unanticipated ill effects? Proponents argue, “Nay, fear monger. For to claim facetiously ‘What could go wrong?’ is to utter a fallacious argument.”

Incidentally, the picture above is a slippery slope; the kind your mother warned you to stay away from because if you weren’t careful, one step over the edge and down you’d go. Slippery slopes exist and can be deadly (this one was).

Update Half way down the hill we see this: Teenage Girls Should Get IUDs or Hormonal Implants for Birth Control, Says American College of OBGYNs.

In the near future, if we are not careful, the word parent will degrade to a synonym of government. And people will flee from “doctors” bearing syringes uttering, “We’re from your parents and we’re here to help.”

9 thoughts on “Rhode Island Schools Forbid Gender, New York Schools Sneak Drugs To Students Leave a comment

  1. Steve Brown has been a relentless thorn in the side of RIers for decades, instigating dissension on a regular basis. Just last year and against the wished of nearly all the citizens he forced the removal from a school of a 50-year old banner that was in effect a generic prayer asking blessing on the students. In this case the school committee missed its chance when it failed to frame the issue as freedom of speech and thus making it a case of Mr. Brown having to argue against himself. So why has Mr. Brown clung on so long? Alas, RIers are a tolerant bunch (just look at the 70-year rule of the Democrat Party that imposes high taxation rates and a bottom-of-the-barrel economy). Mr. Brown is safe to cause mayhem until retirement…

  2. The communists, now defunct, took kids from their parents to raise them up under a constant barrage of brainwashing. Communism went belly-up after a few decades in power. These neo-communists, aka democ-rats/humanists/illuminati/etc are duping/doping our kids into believing in this new ideology which is actually anti-Christian hard-line socialism wrapped up a bit differently. But it will not last long. In my country we have a saying: Lies and liers die an early death.

  3. All those requirements….

    Why, that’s just like how religion (then limited to various versions of “Christianity”) was practiced in this country early on: very tough, specific, and uncompromising rules. Remember the Puritans? (and recall what issues they were running from back in Europe…)

    New rules today, but rules — hard & fast ones — just the same.

    And in both cases, rules intended to make things “proper” as that term, or suitable synonyms, have come to be redefined.

    Seems there’s something in human nature to persist at this rule-making sort of thing … at least when similar, even the same groups, aren’t engaged in striking down rules willy nilly as the ’cause du jour.’

  4. But at least the old rule makers took great pains to explain in great detail ahead of time what was forbidden and what was encouraged. In the brave new world, you never know you have violated a precept until the likes of Mr. Brown leap out and cry “Gotcha!”

  5. Screwtape,
    I think researchers should concoct something that induces (reversible) Y chromosome infertility. Then there might be one less worry for parents with daughters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *