Biden Admin Says “Mother” and “Father” are Offensive

Biden Admin Says “Mother” and “Father” are Offensive

New U.S. guidelines for overseas educational programs suggest that the terms “mother” and “father” are “offensive.”

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) released guidelines encouraging USAID educational partners to integrate these new LGBT ideas into school curriculums and teacher trainings.

Reasserting its commitment to “inclusive development,” the new guidelines draw upon the Obama era strategy document LGBT Vision for Action, which outlined USAID’s strategy for promoting homosexuality and transgender ideology through its work overseas.

The new document offers “best practices” for LGBT “inclusion in education,” which includes banning the use of the “offensive and inappropriate” terms, like “mother” and “father,” removing books and content “from curricula that negatively stereotype” individuals who identify as LGBT and promoting “diverse sexual orientations and gender identities” in sexual education and family formation curriculums.

In the guidelines, USAID encourages educators to “expand [their] students’ knowledge of diversity” by exposing them LGBT role models “through literature, lessons and classroom guests.”

The document also encourages schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom and locker rooms intended for students of the opposite sex to ensure that transgender students are not “marginalized” or “exposed to bullying and/or harassment.” Schools are also advised to refrain from implementing dress codes for students that are strictly based on a “binary understanding of gender,” which USAID claims is detrimental to “transgender, third-gender, and non-conforming students and educators.”

USAID warns schools that some educators, which includes all faculty, administrative staff, pupil support services – essentially any adult on campus – “may be biased or judgmental against LGBTQI+ students and may not be able to create an inclusive environment or provide support for LGBTQI+ students,” especially “educators whose personal and religious beliefs do not support” the LGBT lifestyle.

Beyond the religious litmus test USAID implicitly suggests is necessary to weed out non-inclusive educators, USAID also advises that schools must ensure that “education officials do not reveal a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity” to a student’s family without the expressed permission from the student, claiming that minors have a right to privacy from their parents.

The document also offers examples of successful LGBT “inclusive education programs.” For example, in Kosovo, under USAID’s Basic Education Program “over 140 principals in Kosovo participated in training” designed to “increase school directors’ awareness of the challenges faced by LGBTQI+ students and teachers, and their duty of care for students and staff” – again, implicitly asserting that principals have an extraordinary legal “duty of care” for LGBT students and staff.

USAID claims that LGBT students are disproportionately impacted by violence in school compared to their heterosexual peers and references a UNESCO document that defines certain speech as violence.

USAID also claims that “[i]n pre-colonial times it appears that there were local understandings that gender and sexual diversity was a part of the reality of humanity,” and that any idea that the promotion of the LGBT agenda abroad is “a form of cultural imperialism” is not accurate.