Voodoo Science, Child Sexuality and Perversion at the University of Toronto

A symposium, held at the University of Toronto on October 19 this year, caused quite a stir in the media shortly after it was announced. The symposium, under the title “BODIES AT PLAY: Sexuality, childhood and classroom life,” was put together by the Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies (University of Toronto), a.k.a. SDS, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). The organizers promoted it as an event of interest to anybody concerned about education – “a symposium for everyone interested in childhood today – teachers, teacher educators, scholars, and community service providers.” The reality turned to be completely different.

The main controversy was caused by the fact that Prof. James Kincaid from the University of California was scheduled to be the keynote speaker. As a notorious author of works on child sexuality some perceive him as a promoter of pedophilia (more on his views later). Because of that, some Christian organizations called for banning him from entering Canada.

The Toronto blogger Richard K., whose post about Kincaid was quoted by the press, was unfairly accused of taking the professor’s views out of context. Yes, it’s important to get into the context, that’s why in this article I made the effort to analyze the whole context, in which the organizations involved operate – that would make clear why it is so important to them to have Kincaid as a speaker.

Before going into the details of that analysis, let me say that its results show a picture much worse than what the Christians anticipated. Here we are dealing with the promotion of heavy and biased homosexual agenda, based on pseudo-science (or no science at all) and imposed on our public school system.

bodies-at-play-program

You can’t figure out that from the program, but it will become clear pretty soon.

As a side note, I have to mention that any criticism of homosexuality, even when it is justified, could have grave consequences in Canada. Just ask Bill Whatcott, who was convicted of hate speech for stating that homosexuals are more likely to get infected with HIV. Recently I had a brush with the gay rage. A few months ago the blog had a post about “Dress in Drag Day” at Inglenook Community High School. This is an institution from the TDSB network of “alternative schools,” in which kids are used as lab rats for Marxist educational experiments. The post contained a few pictures – the TDSB perverts, who organized the event placed on the school’s Facebook page pictures of the kids dressed like cheap Parkdale tranny hookers. Oops… forgot to turn on my PC filter – I meant affordable transgender sex workers from a challenging but vibrant Toronto neighbourhood.

I found the display disgusting and wrote my own critical post. The result was an incredibly vicious attack from the militant homosexuals of Toronto. Part of it was a cyber-attack, which made my site inaccessible for several hours. Then I started receiving hate mail and comments – they varied from death threats, through mocking my ethnic background to accusing me of every possible “homophobic” crime. The language those people used resembled the outburst of a drunken sailor, who has just found out that the harbour hooker he picked up has a penis. The most ridiculous thing was that they threatened to sue me for using images of minors – when those images are in several blogs and most importantly, available for the whole world to see on school’s Facebook page.

This post may cause similar reaction, but it doesn’t matter – the truth is more important. The homosexual agenda pushed by the TDSB and OISE has been covered in detail in newspapers and blogs. It includes the new sex curriculum, which the parents resisted, but the new government of the Grand Lesbian Wynne is planning to revive it (never mind her involvement in the gas plant money scam), along with forcing homosexual clubs on schools (a.k.a. GSA). There was that small detail that one of the architects of that curriculum, Ben Levin (involved both with OISE and the provincial government) was arrested for producing child pornography, but never mind, the media already covered it up.

It is more interesting to take a look at the host of the symposium – the Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies (SDS). The name of the institution implies that it should include all cases of sexual diversity like sadism, masochism, foot fetishism, and the whole spectrum described in Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopatia-Sexualis. (Shouldn’t this be the nature of “equity and inclusiveness”?) But that’s not the case – from the materials presented by SDS it is clear that this is a strictly homosexual organization. Here is how they define the nature of their studies:

sexual-diversity-studies-program-1

sexual-diversity-studies-program-2

“The study of sexual diversity, and its social, political, and cultural significance, has developed alongside activist movements, alternative social networks, and the growth of community institutions. We are strengthened by our location at the heart of the city that is home to vibrant and diverse gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities. Toronto’s rich cultural and ethnic diversity helps ensure that our programs take account of the critical role of racial, class, ethnic, and linguistic issues in understanding sexuality.”

It looks like they admit that the whole department has not been based on actual scientific research, but was created as a result of homosexual activism. That “vibrant and diverse” community and not any real science is the engine that makes SDS run. SDS is another politically correct tool for dividing and confronting people with each other based on class, race and ethnicity.

They don’t hide the fact that their goal is to exercise a significant influence on the public education in Ontario. The purpose is to crush the resistance by all means possible and make the questionable homosexual lifestyle something that is above any criticism. Of course, all this is being sold as a noble struggle against bullying.

“The Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies is a leader in education on issues of sexual diversity, and we are now strengthening our commitment to exploring the challenges entailed in making schools inclusive. We know a great deal now about bullying and homophobia in schools, and the dreadful toll this takes on students who do not conform…

These patterns of exclusion require innovative teaching and broad approaches to change. While several school boards across the country have taken action against bullying and harassment, these programs often neglect broader agendas of the exclusion of sexually diverse youth, and there remains “a very significant implementation gap between formal policy and uptake by either schools or individual teachers,” (Rayside) Patterns of “delay, caution and resistance” remain the order of the day in schools across the country. Sex education curricula continue to be attacked, stalled, and undermined by determined opposition, and by persistent public anxieties about allowing young people to deviate from traditional notions of gender and sexuality.”

 

The centre offers an Undergraduate Program in Sexual Diversity Studies. Looking at the courses, it is not hard to see that this is another useless diploma mill, which provides baristas for Starbucks (unless you are lucky enough to be picked up by Barbara Hall’s HRH Inquisition, which would use the graduate to ruin people’s lives over imaginary “homophobic crimes”).

Don’t believe me? Here are some of the important questions contemplated at that centre of high learning:

Among these questions are how we frame and categorize sexual difference; why we fear some and celebrate others; how medical, religious, and political authorities respond to them. What is the nature of sexual identity and orientation? How and why is sexuality labeled as lesbian, heterosexual, perverse, normal, gay or queer? How do cultures at different times and places divide the sexual from the non-sexual?

The courses are designed to give you answers to those questions:

“UNI325H1 Queerly Canadian

A focus on Canadian literary and artistic productions that challenge prevailing notions of nationality and sexuality, exploring how artists struggle with the Canadian thematic of being and belonging, and how they celebrate pleasure and desire as a way of imagining and articulating an alternative national politics.

UNI470H1 Sexual Aesthetics, Sexual Representation

This course explores the history, culture, and aesthetics of sexual representations. Is there a difference between erotica and pornography? How do debates about artistic merit and censorship relate to larger issues of power, capitalism, and technology?”

Queerly Canadian? Are we supposed to invent a new Canadian identity to make the homosexual artists feel more “included”? Surely, many pornographers would find the second course very useful.

An important part of SDS is the Sexual Diversity Studies Student Union, which takes active part in organizing conferences related to the topics studied at the centre.

“The SDSSU is an organization run by students to represent anyone who has ever taken a Sexual Diversity Studies course at the University of Toronto. We work to make your voice heard within the SDS community and attempt to bring everyone on campus together by holding academic and community events to celebrate and (re)think sexual and gender diversity.”

sexual-diversity-studies-student-union-1

sexual-diversity-studies-student-union-2

So what conferences have been organized previously at SDS? I’ll be glad to tell you. In a pamphlet given to the participants in the symposium, they listed the following past conferences and speakers:

“Fetish: Working Out the Kinks” with Dr. Carol Queen

“Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Government and Regulation” with Scarlot Harlot and Todd Klinck

“Porn Reborn” with Tristan Taormino and Bruce La Bruce

The topics appear to be hot and diverse, but frankly, I never heard of those speakers before. A simple online search yielded some fascinating results.

Wikipedia informed me that “Carol Queen is an American author, editor, sociologist and sexologist active in the sex-positive feminism movement. Queen has written on human sexuality in books such as Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture. She has written a sex tutorial, Exhibitionism for the Shy: Show Off, Dress Up and Talk Hot, as well as erotica, such as the novel The Leather Daddy and the Femme. Queen has produced adult movies, events, workshops and lectures.” And on top of all that she is a witch (Wiccan). What an outstanding genius!

Scarlot Harlot is uniquely qualified to talk about prostitution, because she is a hooker, pardon me, I meant “sex worker.” She is credited with coining that term. She is author of the masterpiece Unrepentant Whore: The Collected Works of Scarlot Harlot. Her co-speaker Todd Klinck is a Canadian writer, nightclub owner and pornography producer.

Tristan Taormino (who is a woman), other than being a militant feminist, is also a porn movie director. Her co-speaker with the seductive name “Bruce LaBruce (born Justin Stewart) is a Canadian writer, filmmaker, photographer and underground gay porn director based in Toronto. His films explore themes of sexual and interpersonal transgression against cultural norms, frequently blending the artistic and production techniques of independent film with gay pornography.”

It is hard to figure out what those people were doing in an academic institution, but by now you must’ve figured out that insanity and weirdness are an integral part of the Canadian liberal arts education. Compared to those luminaries, Prof. Kincaid, regardless of his modest achievements, towers over them like King Kong over a gang of leprechauns.

According to the information provided by the organizers all three degrees of James Kincaid – B.S., M.A. and Ph. D. – are in English. “He regularly teaches classes in criminality/lunacy/perversion, in age studies, in censorship, and in other areas of literary, political, and cultural studies.” Nothing in his education qualifies him to be a theoretician of education. He lacks any background in biology and psychology.

His main books are about the English literature, he wrote on the laughter in Dickens; the poems of Lord Tennyson; the novels of Anthony Trollope. He has also edited an anonymous Victorian erotic novel – My Secret Life.

The two books somewhat related to children deal with the issue of pedophilia: “Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture” (1992) and “Erotic Innocence: The culture of child molesting” (Duke University Press, 1998).

I found and read his book “Erotic Innocence” before the symposium. For a leading theoretician of education, the book is too light on solid scholarly research. It is a mixture of literary criticism and journalism. Kincaid comments on the sexualisation of children in the Victorian literature and then looks for similar phenomena in the modern culture. He cites numerous examples, mostly from the cinema and advertising, that allegedly show the obsession with the child as a sexual object. Among his examples are Shirley Temple and Macaulay Culkin. At the same time (in a somewhat contradictory way) he laments about the obsession of the authorities to fight child pornography online, which he considers a minor issue.

His conclusion (which he doesn’t prove scientifically) is that most people are latent pedophiles, who have dormant attraction to children:

“The erotic feelings we have toward children are not, in themselves, a problem – or at least not a problem we can’t handle. Becoming part of that problem is the solution. Denial does nobody any good and drives the desire into the lying, scapegoating babble, where it thrives and does terrible harm. Erotic feelings are not rape.” (James Russell Kincaid – Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting (Duke University Press, 1998), p. 228)

He thinks that it is difficult to control those feelings and recommends that when they become too strong, people should engage in voyeurism to prevent worse things:

“In the meantime, we should keep hugging kids, playing horsey, bathing them, and taking pictures of them naked on rugs (not bear rugs), just as we did before we had the wits scared out of us. If you find yourself getting too excited, going too far, wanting to incite or not to stop – then stop. If you are hard-pressed, then indulge in voyeurism, which is child abuse only by elastic standards and seems to many children at least as funny as it is invasive.” (Ibid. p. 289)

The activities he mentions – hugging, bathing and taking pictures – are most often something that parents do. Implying that they are aroused sexually by their children is not only false, but also insulting. I wonder in what kind of circles the good professor has made his observations that caused that conclusion.

The title of Kincaid’s presentation was: What is this thing called a child? And, why do we want to teach it?

It sounded like he treats the child as a remote physical object, which can be experimented upon. I am not going into details about the lecture, because Richard K. already covered it in his blog (including his attempt to question the scientific basis of Kincaid’s views in a direct conversation).

I just want to add that there was very little science behind Kincaid’s “advice.” He kept rambling most of the time about the “romantic child” and the “surrealist child” in literature (without showing how they relate to actual education) and in the process didn’t forget to trash the traditional family as outdated. Those speculations would’ve been appropriate at a philosophical or literary conference, but it was strange to hear them at a symposium supposed to provide practical information to educators.

The second part of the symposium included 3 workshops. The first one, presented by Gail Bolt (Penn State University), was: “Through the lenses of teaching and research: What do we see and what do we miss?” The second workshop dealt with “Re-Imagining Black Masculinities: On Gender, Race and Sexuality in/out of the Classroom” The presenter, Prof. Lance McCready, from OISE, University of Toronto, whose “research program, community work and writing considers the relationships between urban environments, urban education and youth well-being using theories of intersectionality, queer of color analysis, gender relations and social determinants of health.” You can’t make this stuff up.

The most interesting was Workshop 3: “On the Embodied Lives of Children and Teachers.” According to the program:

“This workshop will consider ways that secondary-classroom teachers can work towards unravelling, unbinding and undoing the embodiment of gender constructions, sex and sexuality in the classroom. Sharing practical curricular concepts, student work and personal experiences Louise will explore how the embodied lives of teachers and students intersect to create dialogue, art and change about ourselves and our bodies.”

The presenter Louise Azzarello (Secondary Teacher, TDSB) has a QV, which is impressive from the point of view of the “progressive educators” of Toronto. It’s no wonder she was selected:

“Louise Azzarello, B.A., B.Ed., M.A. is a media educator working from an interdisciplinary and equity framework. Her M.A. thesis, Spectacle & Discipline: Regulating Female Bodies through Dance explored the notions of body regulation in Western Theatrical Dance from a feminist social and political perspective. She has taught in a number of tdsb schools working with marginalized/racilaized youth and designing curriculum that embeds issues of equity and social justice. Louise was a member of the writing team who produced the new Gender course developed by the Ontario Ministry of Education.”

During the workshop it became clear that Louise teaches at Oasis Alternative Secondary School, where she is the only straight woman of a collective of four (the rest are lesbians). Oasis is another TDSB invention, specifically designed for vulnerable homosexual youth, where they are subjected to questionable educational experiments in the form of the Triangle Program. Here is the description of the school:

Oasis-Alternative-School-1

Oasis-Alternative-School-2

 

“Triangle – Unique in Canada, we offer academic and applied level programs for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (lgbtq) students who are able to work independently with some guidance. We have a selection of Grades 9 to 12 courses offered in a positive environment through independent courses and group classes. We believe that students deserve to learn in a safe environment, where they will be respected and treated equally.

Successful students are able to remain at Triangle for their entire high school education or to transition to other schools after one or two semesters to complete their diploma. Our program covers lgbtq history, peoples, literature, and issues; as well as class field trips and access to lgbtq community events. For senior students, we also offer cooperative education placement opportunities within the community. We also benefit from volunteers from the lgbtq community who provide tutorial support and assist with our lunch program.”

 

I wasn’t aware that there were homosexual peoples in history (maybe because they quickly became extinct). Do the field trips cover gay bars and events of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid? It is hard to believe that the heavily homosexual based curriculum is going to prepare the students for the real life.

The two “practical” fields offered – the Skateboard Factory and street art program – can hardly provide a living. Competing with the “Made in China” skateboards is not an easy task. As of the street art, if they mean graffiti, that’s vandalism, not art. If the idea is to sell art on the street, that’s also a problem. Not all people are talented and the competition for the government art grants is way too stiff. Why doesn’t the TDSB consider some practical skills and trades instead of creating more angry people, who don’t fit in society?

Louise’s presentation was centred on the human body as an expression of the inner life of the human beings. Since her main specialty was “social justice”, she approached everything from the point of view of oppression.

bodies-at-play-oppression

In her opinion, the oppression is applied everywhere – from the restrictive seating arrangement in a class room, through the social roles, to the “gender oppression”. The purpose of education in her view is to overcome that oppression and the specific tool is “equity education.”

bodies-at-play-stop-equity

 

Equity education is implemented through a new approach to the body:

“Equity Education and the Body

Identity is a choice

Being yourself is key

Are there only 2 options of gender?

Why is our eductional system part of the problem?

Why is it difficult to accept those of different races?

In the ends we all have our place.”

If the list left you wondering how somebody could be paid to teach that junk at school and promote it as science at a “scholarly symposium,” you are not alone.

She demonstrated that with photo examples from her teaching practice. There was an exercise, where students wore each other’s clothes to get into the identity and experiences of the “other”. Another exercise included a photo project. One of her students presented a series of photos showing the sexual harassment in the school hallways. Louise proudly stated that this was the only assignment that the girl ever completed. (I wonder what kind of discipline the school instills, but probably discipline is a capitalist concept.) The photos taken by the girl showed role playing, where, for example, a boy was touching a girl’s breast. Another one was showing a girl cornered by an aggressive boy, and a third had a girl grabbing a boy’s crotch (all were clothed). (I wonder again how that helped the teaching process.) Louise didn’t mention what the school administration actually did to fight the harassment.

During the break we were invited to a room, where the GLAD bookstore set up a table with homosexual literature. I bought the book “A Tale of Two Daddies” by Vanita Oelschlager. I hope that spending money with a homosexual organization absolves me from the “homophobia” accusations.

tale-of-two-daddies

The book, written for elementary school children and recommended by the TDSB, tells in pictures the story of a little girl, who grows up in a happy homosexual family. I don’t know how typical her story is. Probably the story of “Gay Couple Number One” of Ontario – the Smitherman “family” – would sell better. The two Smitherman “daddies,” being fond at different times of some not-very-legal substances, had recently a catfight, which became national news. The dysfunctional homosexual family of the Smithermans would make much better literature.

Talking of literature, the closing segment of the symposium was a writers’ panel. Three authors – Shyam Selvadurai, Farzana Doctor and Brian Rigg – gave short talks and read excerpts from their novels. Unfortunately, I have never heard of any of those authors, as it is often the case with writers, who owe their “popularity” to government subsidies rather than the quality of their literary works. After writing this, I see a new accusation looming, because all three of them were visible minorities and in Canada, if you criticize them, you are automatically branded a racist.

I am sure that by now you figured out that all the works they read from were promoting homosexuality. They covered the gay “marriage”, “coming out”, etc. etc.

So, that’s what I found most disturbing – a scholarly symposium on education, which supposedly was to benefit all educators, turned out to be a tribune for promoting junk science and homosexual values. That wouldn’t have been a problem, if it was done at the meeting hall of an activist organization without pretending to be an introduction to cutting-edge innovative educational theory.

However, if this is presented by the University of Toronto, TDSB and OISE, we have a problem. Imposing on the vulnerable minds of children ideas (often disguised as measures against “bullying”), which are results of homosexual activism and poorly veiled Marxism, and have no basis whatsoever in real science is a crime against those kids’ future.

The things are aggravated by the fact that criticizing homosexuality or any other deviation could be considered hate crime in Canada. Thus, when you oppose the lunatic theories about three, four, eight of twenty genders, you risk to receive a very real punishment from the Human Rights Commissions or the courts. In Canada we have reached the point, where false science is being forced by the government by judicial means, which is one of the signs of totalitarianism.

 

© 2013 Blogwrath.com

 

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Comments

  1. The Lone Ranger says:

    These fakes, flakes, fruits, fags, freaks and fairies are the new re-education commissars – and our taxes are paying for this growing nightmare in our universities.

    1. admiwrath says:

      The scary part is that they are so united in their aggression against everything that we consider normal.

Leave a Reply

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