PFOX Yet To Disclose Anti-Bullying Materials Presented At Conference
Update: Throckmorton emailed me this same evening with the material presented. He directed me to www.respectandthefacts.com. I’ll have a look in the next day or so.
“This weekend PFOX will be presenting materials and methods designed to protect all students and ensure safe schools for everyone.” -Warren Throckmorton(*)
Well it’s Monday afternoon and PFOX has yet to post any of these methods/materials to their website. I’ve called and emailed asking if these take the form of new lesson-plans or curricula, and if so to please send me a copy. My call and email have gone unacknowledged. If you, the XGW reader have better luck getting your calls returned, feel free to help me out by requesting a copy of the materials presented at PFOX’s conference.
In the linked press release, Warren Throckmorton accuses PFLAG of being one-sided on the issue of homosexuality, and says that PFOX offers a full range of views on the issue.
I’m unimpressed by his assertion that PFLAG is one-sided, especially because it is backed up by his conjecture of what PFLAG would be talking about, not what they actually said.
On that note, though, I went to PFOX’s website to the Testimonials section only to find not one article that addressed well-adjusted, positive gays and/or lesbians. Every testimonial referred to the fact that change was possible, being gay was a choice, or how children had been harmed by gay parents. None of the articles had any type of positive take on homosexuality at all. I’m not sure how that is a well-rounded take on the issue. Maybe Dr. Throckmorton could elaborate for me.
To George [Archibald]:
George, in past communications you have stated difficulty in understanding why readers of your articles might think you are biased. So that you may have a better understanding, I offer this critique of your latest anti-PTA pro-PFOX article:
1. Decide whether PFOX is a “support group” as you most recently called them or a “reform group” as this article claims. Are they “a support group for former homosexuals” or do they “encourage homosexuals to reform their behavior”? They are not the same. One is focused on supporting individuals with their choices and the other is focused on making the choices for them.
2. As much of the article was dedicated to assuming some nefarious reason for the removal of some signs in the hallways, a reporter interested in presenting information rather than championing a position would have quoted the signs or, if they were too wordy, at least some of the words in question. The hotel took down the signs because they were “taunting” but nothing in your article lets the reader decide whether or not to agree with the hotel. You simple describe them thus: “One sign urged PTA delegates to ask why the support group for reformed homosexuals was barred from exhibiting along with other parents’ groups in the convention hall. The other sign called for “respect and the facts.”” It isn’t possible to come to a conclusion based on that description. I might agree with you, but since I’m not provided with the text of the signs, I must assume that they were, as the hotel claimed, taunting of other guests.
3. You state that “Hotel sources and convention delegates” said that PFLAG was the source of the complaint about the signs but do not clarify. In other words, you quote sources without allowing the reader to determine if the sources have bias. Were these “hotel sources and convention delegates” actual employees of the hotel? Were they delegates that were part of some body that would know who requested the signs be removed? Or were they members of PFOX that were guessing about the source of the request?
4. In a previous article you suggested that PFOX wished to present an anti-bullying program. However, this article describes PFOX’s purpose at the conference as “a three-day teach-in on its view that homosexuality is a personal lifestyle choice and not an inborn genetic trait”. Clearly, these are not the same.
5. The language “dispatched a uniformed hotel security guard” is inflammatory. There is no relevance whatsoever as to whether the representative of the hotel was a uniformed security guard or a bellhop. The words chosen suggest force, something clearly not present in actuality.
6. You quote one outside source, Republican Diana Fessler, who “deplored the exclusion of the parents’ reform group”. There was no other quote from anyone who might not have deplored the exclusion. It you had the slightest interest in balance, another source could easily have been found.
When you indignantly stated on this site that you were not biased, I thought maybe you would at least attempt – in further articles – to provide coverage rather than preach. However, George, you no longer can claim with any credibility that you are an unbiased reporter. There just isn’t any way that claim can be consistent with this article.
Don’t count on Doc Throck responding to you. I’ve not seen him answer questions or respond to challenges on this site. His style seems to be simply to post wild assertions and then lay low.
He doesn’t hold himself liable for the accuracy of his statements and I’ve never seen him retract anything, no matter how clearly it is proved to be inaccurate.
It sounds like Doc Crockmorton needs to take some of his own medicine. That is he needs to learn about passive-agressive behavior and start working on a program to deal with it in his life. He certainly fits the bill as far as this kind of behavioral problem is concerned.
I have the materials Throckmorton is/was to presentSelf-described as “factual information free of ideology”, it is instead full of every Focus on the Family code word you could stuff in. Remarkably, considering this is the 2nd year that PFOX and the Dr have been demanding to present alongside PFLAG — the material is dated June 2005. Oh, he only just wrote it did he??? And in what looks like a hurry. Frankly, I doubt the NEA or NPTA needed to reject anything… It Didn’t Exist (yes, a pun)I am the middle of assembling a web-page, but “Sexual Orientation: Is Change Possible?” is absolutely hideous; and does precisely the very things that he and PFOX complain about. Its sole aim seems to be to isolate, confuse and cast doubt about the lives of gay men and women. Of note: it’s just a chop job on “I Do Exist” (which itself is presented as being ‘suitable for schools’, but maybe not… because it needed 19 minutes of god-references chopped out its 48 minutes)Then we move to the utterly falsely named “Sexual Orientation & Public Schools: A Balanced Approach”. This is claimed to be what schools should use as a lesson plan.Lesson 1 begins with 9 questions that Throckmorton emphatically states are false; but never once is it mentioned that his “truth” is the minority viewpoint or that he’s being a complete weasel with the wording/interpretation. The weighty viewpoints of the APAs, ACA etc are dismissively treated or not even mentioned. Teachers are reminded to permit faith-based opinion (as against taking a fact-based lesson I guess) which is nothing more than protecting wingnuts as they insult their classmates (“But it’s my religion… I’m not name calling.”)Sound familiar? Yep,… it’s just another damned Creationism lesson in a science class.At the very least it is utterly unsuitable because (despite the title) it is not about sexual orientation; but an exercise in heterosexuals talking about homosexuality. Apparently we’re the only one’s who think we have a sexual orientation. Not like the normal people, hey?Prime example, word count in the two “lessons”: homo/bisexuality and variations = 44, heterosexualty and variations = 15.Equally, the “lesson” is one that treats homosexuality (and therefore gay youths) as a segregated and isolated “minority” topic. We don’t get an integrated view of sexuality for all, but an exercise in otherness and separation. Surely, he cannot have intended that?I’m coming up with a new slogan — if ex-gays want equal time, then they’ll have to share it with ex-ex-gays. If this is what the Montgomery School Board put up with for 2 years, they must have the patience of saints.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton was slated to release educational publications promoting inclusive and safe school environments for all students, including gay and ex-gay students and educators at the PFOX booth. Representatives from PFOX planned to present balanced materials concerning sexual orientation and safe schools. … He will also unveil the booklet, “Respect and the Facts: How to Have Both in the Sexual Orientation Debate” and “Sexual Orientation: Is Change Possible? a documentary regarding sexual orientation change suitable for viewing in the public schools.
Oh, and Throckmorton is making money out of all the copies sold…
I just read much of Doc Throck’s anti-bullying presentation. On it’s own, it’s not overly offensive other than in terms of its silence on certain issues. However, that isn’t his purpose. The real goal is fairly obviously in terms of his referrals to other sites, particularly his own “respect and the facts” site which pushes his other presentation about sexual orientation.
That piece of work is pure propoganda. Take a gander at the first points he makes in his History section:
“A. From the beginning of recorded history, the vast majority of people have engaged in sexual behaviors primarily with people of the opposite sex. [ok, so far] Such relationships are the only type that serves the essential biological function of human reproduction. [huh? and just what exactly have to do with the history of sexual orientation. Do high school kids not know this? Is there any purpose for including it other than to imply that heterosexuality is implicitly better than homosexuality]. However, there is also evidence that in some cultures a minority of people have engaged in sexual relations with people of the same sex. [yeah, that would be every culture of which we have any record]
B. At the same time, sexual behaviors have been the subject of societal and religious norms from antiquity [didn’t take long to make your point, did ya, Warren?]
Warren’s idea of ballance is “gay=bad, ex-gay=good”
See, he mentions them both
Were you addressing George Archibald of The Washington Times? I don’t know of a George Alexander. Worthwhile info, otherwise.
Please refrain from namecalling.
Many thanks for the info.
I hate it when I make an obvious mistake like that. thanks for fixing it. 🙂
Yeah, I meant George Archibald of the Washington Times. he was on here defending his earlier hit piece exposing the PTA’s supposed bias while claiming he had none.
More strangeness from the anti-PFLAG materials:Bullying Defined: Exposing another person to either verbal or physical harm, or threatening to harm another person with the purpose of controlling the other person’s
thoughts and/or actions. … Indirect Bullying [includes] Social Alienation, Excluding from the group, Social rejection, Manipulating social order to achieve rejection, Threatening with total isolation by peer groupWow — did Throckmorton just admit the very reason why anti-gay religious views, and all the ex-gay “resources” I’ve ever read, should be controlled within the school system??? Did he just admit that James Dobson is a bully? I wonder what practical steps a school board could take to overcome such bullying?(Note: Throckmorton never does recommend exactly WHAT underlying basis he thinks there should be for the lessons. He’s just here to undermine others who do, like PFLAG. And no, a bland “treat everyone nice” wears real thin, real soon — unfortunately, some people think that harassing gay kids with Jesus and Hell is treating people nicely…)And he appears to then go on to recommend that a GSA be in every school???…Isolation/ Abandonment — You may feel alone if not supported by friends, especially as the bully shows some muscle. Refuse to be alone. Take the
initiative: start a support group for bullied peers; gather strength in numbers.This is getting weirder by the minute… oh, wait — I keep forgetting: this material is really just pulp for the media. It’s not as if PFOX would REALLY want an anti-bullying program on that basis; they just want to sound nice and look the victim as they attack people.[And yes Benjamin, passive-agressive is the term to be used.]
As your readers have indicated interest, here are links for The Washington Times stories about the 2005 National PTA Convention in Columbus, Ohio, which took place June 24-27:
May 10, Page A4
PTA conference disallows equal access for ex-gays
June 24, Page A9
PTA snubs former-gays group for workshop
June 25, Page A4
Spellings avoids PTA ties to pro-gay advocacy group
June 27, Page A3
At PTA gathering, no tolerance for ex-gays’ signs
June 28, Page A6
Pro-gay group seeks support at PTA convention
Student safety cited as concern
I’m amused at what I consider to be the undue attention that is given here to a social “scientist” from a small, rather obscure conservative “christian” college. Is there any particular reason for that attention?
He’s not Einstein, as far as I can tell. Or Schrodinger, for that matter.
Raj, I can tell you mine:Tell me why (and I’m in agreement on the description) someone remarkably unqualified for the status is being touted up and down the U.S. as an expert… why shouldn’t we be concerned that the impoverished ignorance being promoted appears to be spreading.For me this touches on far more than this narrow issue. Why, why, why are there so many willingly gullible people? Is this revealing a nation of masochists, or a nation of sadists?P.S. I’d much prefer quantum physics, but then again — who wouldn’t!.