Education

School Choice Helps LGBT Students in Alabama

The answer for students who feel unwelcome or underserved where they are is to expand the schooling market.

|

Homewood, Alabama, a suburb of 25,000 people south of Birmingham, is home to an excellent example of how charter schools can reach students who struggle in standard public school environments.

There you'll find the Magic City Acceptance Academy, a public charter school that opened its doors last August after struggling for a year to get official permission. The academy says its mission is to facilitate "a community in which all learners are empowered to embrace education, achieve individual success, and take ownership of their future in a safe, LGBTQ-affirming learning environment."

In addition to providing a standard curriculum for grades six through 12, Magic City offers wellness programs, psychological counseling, and help connecting families with health services. In its first year of classes, the school taught 232 students, drawn from all over the greater Birmingham area. All of those students' families were drawn to a school focused on LGBT inclusion. Magic City founder and principal Michael Wilson says he hopes to enroll 325 to 350 students for the 2022–23 school year.

Many critics of charter schools claim they discriminate against underprivileged and minority students by catering to wealthy, privileged, or conservative families. Yet many charter schools cater to minority students and those with special needs. The list of charter schools focused on assisting LGBT students is small so far: The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools counts six of them. But charter schools are a promising way of extricating students from unwelcoming or oppressive public school environments.

Students need not be LGBT to attend Magic City. The goal is to create a friendly and welcoming environment for any child who is being bullied in traditional schools and is not getting the help or support he or she needs.

"There are some pretty horrific things that go on in schools," Wilson says. "It may be about the student's place on the LGBTQ spectrum but may be also because of autism or their skin color or because they're a child of immigrants. They're not comfortable where they are."

School choice allows schools like Magic City to provide an environment that welcomes and supports LGBT children. It also creates room for other charter schools that appeal to more conservative families. The answer for students who feel unwelcome or underserved where they are is to expand the schooling market.

NEXT: Brickbat: Philadelphia Beatdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sounds like this is explicitly an indoctrination center to make woke parents feel self-righteous. In a sense I could understand these kids doing better than in public school because at roughly 40 kids per grade level there are likely smaller class sizes.
    While some people are lgbt, I think pushing teens who are questioning into an echo chamber like this does a disservice to them understanding themselves. I'm also pretty disgusted at the mention of autistic kids attending here. Autists tend to be much more malleable with the lgbtq stuff and are easy to convince they are trans. They don't feel comfortable in their own bodies to begin with and are acutely aware that they aren't normal. I've been seeing a lot of stories of autistic kids being groomed into trans identities.

    1. "Students need not be LGBT to attend Magic City. The goal is to create a friendly and welcoming environment for any child who is being bullied in traditional schools and is not getting the help or support he or she needs."

      So WHO is being PUSHED to be trans? Pushed by a few trans people here or there? Or by Government Almighty-blessed force?

      Citation(s) please!

      1. The goal is to create a friendly and welcoming environment for any child who is being bullied in…."

        I am being bullied by Scott’s OCD coverage of the EIEIO alphabet people. Please make it stop!

        https://tenor.com/view/jim-halpert-the-office-john-krasinski-stop-i-just-want-it-to-a-stop-gif-4667832

      2. "Pushed by a few trans people here or there? Or by Government Almighty-blessed force?"

        If a child is forced by the government to attend a school where an agent of the government (a teacher) pushes their Marxist equity training, or gender bending queer ideology on those kids (often surreptitiously), then I think that is close enough for "Almighty-blessed force".

    2. "Sounds like this is explicitly an indoctrination center to make woke parents feel self-righteous."

      Clearly this is all about satisfying the vanity of parents. How dare they! They should send their kids to the "normal" public schools where they will be bullied and tormented for being different. That is what good parents do.

    3. No, this is not about indoctrination. It's about having somewhere LGBTQ students can study without being bullied to the point that they are mentally unhealthy, even to the point of suicide.

      1. They are mentally unhealthy to begin with. Even as acceptance grows the mental disregulation doesn't subside and the notion that you're pushing is, itself, pretty fucked up. Imagine saying "If autistic kids weren't bullied they'd be fine." or "If Down's Syndrome kids weren't bullied, they'd be fine." or "If schizophrenic kids weren't bullied, they'd be fine." or "If people with diabetes weren't bullied, they'd be fine."

        1. Yes, imagine all that! Are you a victim of Stockholm Syndrome for kids and just assume that bullying is a part of growing up?

    4. "While some people are lgbt, I think pushing teens who are questioning into an echo chamber like this does a disservice to them understanding themselves."

      At the end of the day, they aren't your kids, so let crazy liberal parents raise them as they see fit. People pass all sorts of neurotic shit onto their kids- it's called culture. Some parents teach kids to be workaholics, while others teach them to be entitled assholes. SOme are taught which of 34 genders they are, while others are taught that a sunday morning cracker turns into the flesh of their sky god.

      Note I am not saying that anything goes with parents and kids- there are some lines where the parents are breaching their duty as guardians to their children. I tend to think irreversible medical treatments that significantly alter their adulthood (like gender reassignment surgery) are not within a parent's rights to authorize.

      Yet, with all that said, the biggest problems in society are not parents raising their children wrong- its assholes insisting there is one way to raise children, and forcing those lifestyle preferences on the rest of the world.

      1. Yeah, I would not do this to my child, but as long as the school is not actively raping them, then this is not my concern. If parents know up front that the school they CHOOSE to send their kid/s to is teaching something, then it is their decision in regards to what is best for their kid/s.

        1. This is the problem with the current regime- 1) parents have a zero sum curriculum where their preferences must compromise with the preferences of other parents, thus raising the stakes of the curriculum. 2) Teachers and other leftists have insinuated all sorts of marxist, social engineering bullshit into the curriculums, and HIDE it from the parents.

      2. At the end of the day, they aren't your kids, so let crazy liberal parents raise them as they see fit.

        At the end of the day, I'd put down money that MasterThief doesn't approve of snooty white kids attending nepotistic, cloistered schools together. At the end of the day, one school is still more likely to be surviving on the public dote while the other is living off of patronage. The critics aren't wrong. Are the students in Magic City getting the same amount of taxpayer dollars, per student, as the poor kids in Mobile or Birmingham. If not, then anyone paying in and anybody observing with an equality *or* libertarian bent has a right to weigh in. The "School choice is great because LGBT schools!" is pure, SJW, bullshit.

        1. Why do you think they are getting more taxpayer dollars than another public school in the area?

          1. many charter schools cater to minority students and those with special needs

            Why do you think 'special needs' is distinct from 'to each according to their needs'? Maybe you don't know any special ed teachers or are generally unfamiliar with the education system?

    5. Sounds like this is explicitly an indoctrination center to make woke parents feel self-righteous.

      If this is the education the parents want for the kids, that's fine.

      Same for religious schools. (this is basically a religious school)

      Of course, proggies have no problem with public money being used to pay parents for their kids' religious education they just have a problem with CERTAIN religious educations

      1. As long as the expectation for living in a delusional bubble ends at age 18, then fine.

        1. This is the beauty of emancipation- those first 3 - 5 years of realizing how much explicit bullshit you were fed throughout your childhood. And 20 years later, you get to realize all the IMPLICIT bullshit you were fed.

          1. Also this:

            “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

            ― Mark Twain

            1. This. And my father had an 8th max.education and I had gone to college. Dropping out of grade school and running the farm in the 50's was a good learning experience I am sure. The man can still grow amazing vegetables and everything I plant dies.

            2. I thought it was 14 years, or some other mathematically incorrect number.

  2. Find fine ladies for casual chat contacts in France only at Mature Sexe

    1. Sacre bleu! Do they braid their own armpit and leg hair?

  3. Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer will be here soon, to tell us all that providing a "safer space" of a school, for protection from bullies, for LGBT and others, is the same as raping 3-year-olds!

    What do I have to say to Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer and other imbalanced ideological idiots, of ALL stripes?

    Judgmental self-righteous asshole describes you to a "T"!

    You have "human dysphoria"... You're an evil inhumane being stuck in a human body! Try to LOVE being a humane human, for once!

    Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer has ZERO balance… She would PUNISH- PUNISH- PUNISH the ones who fart too loudly, the same as the ones who fire-bomb our houses in the middle of the night!

    All agonist-muscle, and no antagonist-muscle, You are, Oh Perfect Imbalanced One… All gas pedal, and no brake! And one of these days, You will have earned Your Perfect Self a Perfect Collision of Agony!

    1. …You are, Oh Perfect Imbalanced One…

      Pro tip: find a boyfriend to fill your dead time with constructive, edifying, personal fulfillment. Given Scott’s nonstop agitprop on LGBTQIA+_alphabet issues, he is clearly in need of a boyfriend, husband, power top. Consider trolling Grindr or, if you wish to find Scott, Growlr gay app for “chubs”. Take both of you out of your misery

      https://www.growlrapp.com/

      Dont forget to wrap it or use PrEP

      1. Go on...

    2. "Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer will be here soon, to tell us all that providing a "safer space" of a school, for protection from bullies, for LGBT and others, is the same as raping 3-year-olds!"

      I think this contingent around here - who deliberately conflate support for LGBT issues with endorsement of pedophilia - never really accepted gay rights, they still think two men getting married and kissing as gross, perverted, disgusting, filthy, immoral, obscene, and something kids should be protected from just like if it was "graphic sex talk". DeSantis is their hero because he's found a way to push this homophobia into law without the strident "I hate the gays" talk.

      1. Feel free to name the people you are discussing. Show some balls.

        1. SHOW THE LIST!

          1. If you... SHOW US YOUR TITS!!!

        2. Show some balls.

          Here you go:

          https://bignaturaltesticles.com/big-balls-on-men-are-large-testicles-really-desirable/

          FYI: You're more likely to cheat if you have larger than life balls due to the extra testosterone your balls carry. Be careful what you wish for.

      2. never really accepted gay rights, they still think two men getting married and kissing as gross, perverted, disgusting, filthy, immoral, obscene, and something kids should be protected from just like if it was "graphic sex talk"...

        You're right... But onto the more IMPORTANT factor; is it the 'right' of gays to TAKE-AWAY the rights of other's to believe the above??? Is that what 'rights' to the left mean? The ?right? to DICTATE the masses???? Think about it....

        Individual Rights *** for all ***; doesn't mean [WE] mob x or y gets to set everyone else's beliefs for them............. Course this [WE] mob building tactics of Women, Color or Immorality had nothing to do with ***for all***... It was specifically built around segregation and EMPOWERING certain gang-affiliation with Gov-Guns.....

        That's why unlimited democracy is a curse... That's what lies at it's very foundation Gang-Land Politics.... Perhaps it's time to get rid of the Nazi(National Socialist)-Regime and bring back the USA.

        1. You're right... But onto the more IMPORTANT factor; is it the 'right' of gays to TAKE-AWAY the rights of other's to believe the above??? Is that what 'rights' to the left mean? The ?right? to DICTATE the masses???? Think about it....

          People should have every right to be homophobic assholes all they want.

          I draw the line, however, when they want to dictate to kids via the law that their homophobia should be normalized in schools.

          1. Schools shouldn't be broaching the subject at all. It has no place in basic education. That is a political/moral realm.

            But again, you think schools should be indoctrination centers.

            1. But again, you think schools should be indoctrination centers.

              Team Red wants schools to be "indoctrination centers" when they insist schools teach according to the normative standards of 50 years ago, that "men are men and women are women". That is just as much "indoctrination" as anyone on Team Blue pushing that there are 95 genders or whatever.

              Teachers should present the issue fairly.

              1. men are men and women are women... So the point is to LIE to them?

          2. Prohibiting butt-sex in kindergarten =/= homophobia...
            Anymore than prohibiting reproductive sex in kindergarten = appropriate.

            1. Yup here we go. ANY discussion of LGBT issues = "talking about butt-sex". So dishonest.

              1. What the F do you thing Gay and Bi-Sexual is about???
                Joining a picnic? I smell dishonesty here; but the stink is from you.

                1. Agree or disagree with Homosexuality or Bisexuality, not everyone prefers anal. Some prefer oral, frottage, BDSM, or other kinks. LGBTQ+ people are as individual in their preferences as Heterosexuals.

      3. "I think this contingent around here "

        Here comes chemjeff to tell us what everybody thinks. It is especially odious because I have told him before, and he just refuses to believe it.

        You are better than this, and if you find yourself trying to converse with Reason's equivalent to a street corner "End is Nigh" ranter, you may have skipped a beat or two.

        1. “You are better than this”

          Cite?

        2. Here comes chemjeff to tell us what everybody thinks.

          Not EVERYONE - it is my *opinion* about a certain number of people around here who, when continually presented with the evidence that the Florida Don't Say Gay law was not JUST about banning "sex talk", but ALSO banning much broader discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity that had nothing to do with "graphic sex talk", then continually retort BUT WHY DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO KINDERGARTNERS ABOUT ANAL SEX, YOU PERVERT GROOMER????? It is my *opinion* that they WANT to deliberately blur the distinction between LGBT identity and pedophilia, they WANT to create in the public mind the idea that LGBT folks are weird and perverted and dangerous and kids should be protected from them. Or, I suppose they are just asshole bad-faith trolls. That could be it too.

          Because at this point in the discussion, I don't think anyone can claim in good faith that the Florida law is MERELY about banning "sex talk".

          1. Regardless of your opinion, the only one to mention LGBT and pedophilia in the same post is you.

            Go ahead, Jeff, label us the "Don't say pedophilia" crowd and then proceed to talk about homosexuality, schools, and pedophilia.

          2. It is my *opinion* that they WANT to deliberately blur the distinction between LGBT identity and pedophilia

            Funny, because you're the one here conflating homosexuality with child grooming, since you're saying opposition to child grooming is just disguised opposition to homosexuality. I know at least a couple of gay guys who'd be insulted by the suggestion.

            1. There we go. Opposition to Florida's Don't Say Gay law is merely "opposition to child grooming". NO IT'S NOT! How many times does this have to be pointed out? The law bans not JUST "sex talk" but ALSO broader discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation in general. Yes, "sex talk" with young kids can fairly be described as "child grooming". But just talking to kids about the reality of LGBT issues is NOT, by any fair standard, "child grooming". YOUR SIDE is the one which wants to claim that merely mentioning that Heather has two mommies to a kid is equivalent to "child grooming", not me.

              1. YOUR SIDE is the one which wants to claim that merely mentioning that Heather has two mommies to a kid is equivalent to "child grooming", not me.

                Except the law specifically allows age- and developmentally- appropriate references. And kids' relationships with their parents usually aren't defined by their parents' sexual orientation or gender identity. In third grade.

                1. Except the law specifically allows age- and developmentally- appropriate references.

                  Not for grades K-3. Those are banned entirely.

                  1. What K-3 student understands critical theory? And the primary issue you continue to ignore is the teachers are hiding these lessons from parents.

                    1. It's not about "critical theory". It is about any discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation. Stop being dishonest.

          3. Yet; One of the very self-made side-effects to Commie-Education.

            Maybe, just maybe free-markets should be setting education standards instead of elected overlords. Dare to think sexual indoctrination wouldn't even peak it's ugly head in a free-market education. How many truly free corporations are going to teach butt-sex? Why? It's not a subject of ?education? -- only Commie-Education because the left put it there.

          4. If you don't accept Jeff's sophistry, you're a bigot.

            Did I summarize that correctly?

            1. The Brandybuck school of debate!

          5. Not EVERYONE - it is my *opinion* about a certain number of people around here who, when continually presented with the evidence that the Florida Don't Say Gay law was not JUST about banning "sex talk", but ALSO banning much broader discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity

            'Presented with the evidence'? Are you kidding? People have been explaining, endlessly, to the folks who use the term 'Don't Say Gay law' that the law IS NOT about not saying gay, but IS about banning the discussion of intersectional gender theory AND explicit sex with children. ALL explicit sex. It's about transparency with parents--instead of teachers doing things behind their backs because the teachers think THEY know better.

            And the people who want to blur the line between LGBTQ and pedophilia are leftist activists and pedophiles --who have spent the last few years desperately trying to attach a 'P' to that string of letters to give NOMAPS some legitimacy.

            1. but IS about banning the discussion of intersectional gender theory AND explicit sex with children.

              It bans much more than that. It bans ALL discussion of "gender identity and sexual orientation", whether or not the discussion is about "explicit sex" or not, whether or not the discussion is about "intersectional gender theory" or not. The law's text has been linked here many times, you are just lying if you try to claim that it is just about "sex talk". It isn't, and never was.

              1. If you want to discuss that with kids... Do it to YOUR kids, in YOUR home... It has absolutely ZERO reason to be indoctrinated in schools that have Gov-Guns at their helm.

                Funny; I remember a massive debate in the 80s about sex even being a subject in Commie-Education due to teen pregnancy.. So it must be we are worried about Kindergarten kids getting pregnant now?

      4. never really accepted gay rights, they still think two men getting married and kissing as gross, perverted, disgusting, filthy, immoral, obscene, and something kids should be protected from...

        One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong.

        Sorry, your little diatribe there reminded me of the old Sesame Street song.

        It's a strange variation of "libertarianism" that says that any behavior that isn't actively suppressed needs to be actively affirmed.

      5. I think this contingent around here - who deliberately conflate support for LGBT issues with endorsement of pedophilia - never really accepted gay rights, they still think two men getting married and kissing as gross, perverted, disgusting, filthy, immoral, obscene, and something kids should be protected from just like if it was "graphic sex talk".

        When I want graphic sex talk, I turn to The View with Joy Blowhard.

        You're conflating issues, but its ok because the Right does it as much as the Left

        People dont come out of the closet, ponder their sexual impulses or act on their hetero/homo-ness till puberty. Planting sexual ideations in a child is not for teachers to do. It is called perversion. I have never had a need, found it pertinent or thought it necessary to discuss homo / heterosexual development or ideations in a young child. That discussion occurs when the parent perceives their child has a need to discuss that topic. That is the point of the Florida law signed by DeSantis, which you know. Youre just agitating to advance Leftist political incrementalism at the expense of young children, which proves the point of DeSantis and Florida Legislature. The development of Children is the responsibility of their parents, not teachers. Teachers are tasked to teach reading, writing and arithmetic, and using any recent metric, they have failed doing these.

        DeSantis is their hero because …

        Because he is hawt!!!

  4. What’s up with Reason’s obsession with children’s sexuality?

    1. It's the in thing at cocktail parties.

    2. It's not about their sexuality, it's about their mental health. So many are bullied to the point of depression and even suicide. Bullying of LGBTQ teens is especially problematic in the bible-belt.

      1. “LGBTQ”

        That’s their sexuality. And I’m referring to the dozens of articles on the subject over the last couple weeks.

        1. The words "mental" and "health" aren't mentioned together in the article. If you search "mental health" in Reason's search bar, newest first, there aren't any LGBT articles. There are obvious reasons why Reason doesn't want to talk about LGBT mental health.

      2. I get your point. I have to counter, though, sixth grade seems a bit young for this sort of thing. If we were talking about a high school, I'd concede your point.

      3. So the answer is to segregate them according to their victimhood?

        No wonder safe spaces exist.

  5. Next up in Florida: DeSantis bans LGBT charter schools in the state.
    But, he won't SAY he's banning LGBT charter schools specifically, he will say something like "it's a ban on sexual indoctrination of kids". (Ignore, of course, that the status quo already represents a type of indoctrination into what is regarded as "normal" behavior. ) That way he gets to continue his homophobic crusade while pretending it's about "protecting kids".

    1. "DeSantis" in an AL story.

      Never change Jeffy.

    2. Do you ever find it odd you have make stuff up to fit your preconceived party-biases?

    3. "Next up in Florida: DeSantis bans LGBT charter schools in the state.
      But, he won't SAY he's banning LGBT charter schools specifically, he will say something like "it's a ban on sexual indoctrination of kids". (Ignore, of course, that the status quo already represents a type of indoctrination into what is regarded as "normal" behavior. ) That way he gets to continue his homophobic crusade while pretending it's about "protecting kids"."

      So, jeffy thinks ALL LGBT curriculum is all about grooming kids. Good to know, you fucking homophobe.

      1. Nope, I think that there is a not insubstantial contingent of Team Red folks who DO think that any curriculum that deals with LGBT issues is "grooming kids".

        1. Feel free to name names.

          1. You, as evidenced below.

            1. Hardly my fault you're too much of a moron to read.

    4. he lives rent free in your head now I see

    5. There isn’t enough straw in the field or red in the oceans for your men and herrings

  6. But seriously this is a terrific idea. This is exactly why we need school choice. So that we can have a flourishing of different ideas on how best to educate kids. There isn't one model that works best for everyone and this is a way for kids to get an education in a supportive environment that works best for them.

    1. But jeff, if school choice becomes too widespread it could enable racist white parents to put their kids in schools where they won't be exposed to the ideas of Dr. Kendi. Obviously we can't have that!

      #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism
      #LibertariansForCRTInPublicSchools

      1. My nieces go to an LGB Academy in Alabama (Let’s Go Brandon)

    2. "There isn't one model that works best for everyone"

      Grooming kids is one that works poorly for everybody. FL is fixing that, though.

      1. And here comes damikesc, redefining curriculum that he disagrees with as "grooming kids" so as to justify banning it in the future.

        1. No. Defining curriculum that seeks to sexualize five year olds as grooming kids. Sorry if you think that it is a grand idea to do so. Perhaps your kids should go to a private school that champions grooming kids?

          1. That is you, redefining curriculum that merely TALKS about LGBT issues to be "sexualizing five year olds".

            But of course, kindergarten stories about princes and princesses falling in love and living happily ever after are not at all about "sexualizing five year olds". That is just "normal".

            The story of Snow White - normal, typical
            The story of "Heather Has Two Mommies" - dangerous SEXUALIZING OF FIVE YEAR OLDS

            1. The story of Snow White - normal, typical

              You keep saying this like a school anywhere teaches Snow White as some sort of lesson, not even just a sexual one. Like, if schools were allowed to teach fairy tales as curriculum to children, you'd be on board without reservation. Seriously, get a new schtick.

              1. I use the story of Snow White as a metaphor for any of millions of stories geared for kids that depict typical heterosexual men and women participating in traditional gender roles. Not once have I ever heard of any Team Red culture warrior describe Snow White, or any of these other stories, as constituting "sexualizing five year olds". It is ONLY about "sexualizing five year olds" when the topic is about non-heterosexual people doing things that go beyond non-traditional gender roles. THAT is the real target of the Don't Say Gay law, not Snow White-type stories.

                1. No. You use the story of Snow White because you either don't know what the word 'sexualize' means or are specifically trying to obfuscate the meaning. Either way, it's not clever. Get a better schtick.

                  1. Since you're a pedant, here is the definition of "sexualize":

                    make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to.
                    "multiple studies found that the media sexualizes athletes"

                    If this is the definition that we are going to use, then every story that involves characters engaging in any sort of behavior attributable to a particular sexual orientation may be viewed as "sexualizing". So, showing Snow White and Prince Charming kissing is "sexualizing" kids, by this standard. I have never heard any Team Red culture warrior complain about this, though, when it's heterosexual couples in kids' stories behaving in traditional heterosexual ways. It is ALWAYS the non-heterosexual, non-traditional-gender-role stories that get them up in arms. Which suggests to me that what they mean by "sexualizing" isn't the dictionary definition of the term, but the term as applied only to non-heterosexual stories.

                    1. So, showing Snow White and Prince Charming kissing is "sexualizing" kids, by this standard.

                      I was gonna ask if you kiss your mother or your kids with that mouth, but I don't want to know.

                      And, again, you've skipped past the fact that Snow White isn't *taught* (or even really discussed) in schools, let alone the specific parts that you want to see as sexual through your pedophile glasses.

                      Now that you've proven you know what the word 'sexualize' means, you need to look up what nouns and verbs mean and how they're used. If you say you kissed your mom on the cheek and I assume it means you had sex with her. You didn't sexualize the kiss, I did. And, again, I have a feeling you know what the words mean and how to use them and you're selectively playing dumb in order to sexualize not explicitly sexual topics (that aren't generally taught in school).

                2. No, you commit to your sophistry no matter how dumb it is. This is how ridiculous your defense has gotten. And you actually do realize this, but you know there is no intellectual defense of your arguments outside of self generated metaphors. It is highly amusing.

            2. "That is you, redefining curriculum that merely TALKS about LGBT issues to be "sexualizing five year olds"."

              Except I am specifically not doing that.

              Sorry to break it to you. Unlike you, I do not feel LGBT = grooming by default.

              "But of course, kindergarten stories about princes and princesses falling in love and living happily ever after are not at all about "sexualizing five year olds". That is just "normal"."

              You mean 90%+ of the population is "Abnormal"? Got it.

              "The story of "Heather Has Two Mommies" - dangerous SEXUALIZING OF FIVE YEAR OLDS"

              Literally nobody is saying that.

              1. Except I am specifically not doing that.

                So now you are opposed to the Florida Don't Say Gay law? That is good to hear.

                "The story of "Heather Has Two Mommies" - dangerous SEXUALIZING OF FIVE YEAR OLDS"

                Literally nobody is saying that.

                That story can't be told in Florida K-3 grades now. You're opposed to that as well?

                1. Can you show me where someone was arrested for reading that story?

                  1. That is not how the law is enforced and you know it. Dishonest, leading question.

                2. "So now you are opposed to the Florida Don't Say Gay law?"

                  No such law exists, so in my usual assumption that fictional laws are likely not good ones, I'll oppose this fictional, non-existent one also.

                  "That story can't be told in Florida K-3 grades now. You're opposed to that as well?"

                  Has that actually been stopped? Can you cite the ban on it?

                  Not saying I do not trust you...scratch that, I am openly saying I do not trust you. But your word means nothing.

                  1. Read the law yourself, it's been linked here multiple times.

                    It bans discussion on "gender identity and sexual orientation" in grades K-3.

                    So talking about why Heather has two mommies is right out. That's a forbidden topic now.

                    But if you're saying that you are fine with kids having Heather Has Two Mommies as storytime in kindergarten, then we agree!

                    1. "Read the law yourself, it's been linked here multiple times.

                      It bans discussion on "gender identity and sexual orientation" in grades K-3.

                      So talking about why Heather has two mommies is right out. That's a forbidden topic now.

                      But if you're saying that you are fine with kids having Heather Has Two Mommies as storytime in kindergarten, then we agree!"

                      So, the answer is no, you cannot provide an example of it happening.

                      Lots of words when two letters would suffice.

            3. That is you, redefining curriculum that merely TALKS about LGBT issues to be "sexualizing five year olds".

              Five year olds don't HAVE LGBT issues, Jeff. That's the point.

              Five year olds GET LGBT issues when adults in authority ply them with them.

              But of course, kindergarten stories about princes and princesses falling in love and living happily ever after are not at all about "sexualizing five year olds". That is just "normal".

              As much as you might hate this, yes, it IS normal. Heterosexuality is the norm. Left completely without adult supervision, without anyone assigning genders or explaining structures of power, every single mammalian species on this planet survives through heterosexuality.

              Sorry.

    3. "But seriously this is a terrific idea. "

      An idea sponsored, legislated and approved by Republicans, chemjeff. And yet, just a week or two ago, the fact that a single fringe candidate objected to this school was proof positive to Chemjeff and Shackford that republicans don't actually want school choice. Because deep in his heart, chemjeff somehow knows how everybody thinks including the Red staters who made this school possible.

      1. They sponsored the idea of school choice in this state. They didn't sponsor the specific idea of an LGBT academy. My contention is that Team Red supports "school choice" only insofar as the schools are broadly supportive of their cultural values. See above for complaints that this school is just an "indoctrination center".

        1. "My contention is that Team Red supports "school choice" only insofar as the schools are broadly supportive of their cultural values."

          And your contention is 100% wrong. This school is proof of that. It is smack dab in the middle of the bible belt, created under laws made by Republicans, and approved by a board of Republicans hand picked by the Republican Governor.

          If your argument that Republicans don't share these cultural values, maybe. But when it came time to stick to principles, the Republicans did it. The school got opened.

          So you were wrong, but you won't admit it. You will jump through every hoop to avoid it.

          " See above for complaints that this school is just an "indoctrination center"."

          It is a fucking indoctrination center, chemjeff. That is what school is- the indoctrination of certain values and subjects into a child's brain. The difference is that the plans the Right has created allow parents to choose the appropriate indoctrination for their kids, while the left wants one size fits all indoctrination according to their values.

        2. Saying the school is an indoctrination center does not equal it should not exist. Parents are free to make bad choices for their children. I think most kids TV is shit on a stick. If parents let their kids watch it, c'est la vie.

          1. Criticizing something does not equate to banning. We're not progressives here.

        3. My contention is that Team Red supports "school choice" only insofar as the schools are broadly supportive of their cultural values.

          And my response is, it depends. The school choice movement is always going to be most powerfully motivated by parents who want what's best for their kids specifically. This is just true. All real movements are at their core motivated by people who are seeking their own benefit or fulfillment. Team Red is made up of millions of people who actually may have widely different beliefs on this because it's millions of people.
          The trick of politics is wrangling together these disparate elements and getting something that works good enough for everyone. Thus, you get a very, very Red state, Alabama, enacting school choice and then an LGBT school being founded based on it. And it doesn't matter if Team Red didn't want that outcome, as long as it's accepted.

          1. It doesn't change the fact that it is a lie to say Republicans *only* want school choice when it is a choice to teach the curriculum they want. If that were the case, Republicans would not have allowed this school to be approved. And yet they did.

            A few weeks ago, Shackford tried to make the same point Chemjeff is making. Because a fringe candidate who can't even get 15% of the primary vote objected to this school. According to them, the fact that this fringe candidate criticized the school, and is ultimately being rejected by the republicans, is somehow evidence that Republicans will ONLY allow choice for their preferred curriculums.

            It may be a shock, but a LOT of Republicans realize that it is good for THEIR kids for LEFTIES to go to their own schools. It will get leftist nonsense out of their schools, and decrease the push from leftists to insinuate their mumbo jumbo marxism into those Republicans' schools. *shrug*

    4. I agree. It's a terrific idea as long as, in less than a decade, when the school is closed for lack of students and lack of certification everyone learns their lesson.

      Reason did this hype cycle with another alternative/experimental school about 5 yrs. ago. I'm sure a 5 year retrospective will turn up that the school is churning out 100 MIT grads, doctors, rocket scientists, and industry magnates per year rather than attracting dozens if not hundreds of students with special needs that require special spending to get a special education.

  7. Yes, why are we asking children to pick a side now and encouraging this. I knew at the age of 15 that I wanted to have sex with any willing female. Fortunately, I was also aware of the problems that this would cause in my life that I was not ready to handle. A bit of delayed gratification until college proved to be important in being successful. This pushing sex on teenager's because they are going to do it anyway is wrong. But don't get me wrong, they are free to create this school. It is just another moral hazard to avoid.

    1. Also, I was pretty much an expert on being bullied in junior high. I actually switched from private school to public schools, partially to avoid bullies. Ended up being bullied at the public school. Pretty much ended it with a fight in a computer room against a bigger kid which I got the best of him. Realized 40 years ago that it was my responsibility to take care if myself as no one else was going to. I am a better person for this. The guy I fought with died a few years back. I brought up this story and said some positive things about him on the high school Facebook page. He did learn and so did I.

      1. Also,
        I was speaking to a friend and she explained that her son had disappeared \disowned her. He had received a small inheritance( ~$40,000) which he has used to move 50 miles to the local state college town. He was an adult~25, but was a bit on the autistic spectrum. Sure enough, someone has convinced him that he needs to be a she and is now taking drugs supplied by his new "friends". Mom has no recourse. Just a sad situation.

      2. Pretty much ended it with a fight in a computer room against a bigger kid which I got the best of him.

        I'll bet you no one fucked with you after that.

        1. I picked a fight in the computer room, and nearly got suspended. Evidently installing Scorched Earth on the school computers was frowned upon in that establishment.

    2. I knew at the age of 15 that I wanted to have sex with any willing female.

      Late bloomer, huh?

  8. More choices???!!!

    That can't be; Only Gov-Guns can make more choices! /s
    Thinks every Gov-Gun worshiping Democrat.

    Just think; If you all would've figured this out before Obamacare y'all Demonrats could've had your own "Obama" Health Insurance Group all to yourselves..... You see NO-ONE wants to stop the leftards from being retarded; they just don't want to be dictated by Gov-Guns...

  9. finally found a reason to oppose school choice....

    (sarc warning jeez)

  10. >>students who feel unwelcome or underserved

    dude that's everybody.

  11. School Choice Helps LGBT Students in Alabama

    One hopes that the fine writers of Reason will realize one day that searching in the dark, feeling their way through the cultural fog hoping to find that beloved left-libertarian alliance won't happen. The modern racist, Marxist, Queer Theory cultural warriors aren't trying to help LGBTQIA2+ kids. They're trying to ideologically capture all of the institutions of society. "Helping LGBTQIA2+ kids is merely one lever to do that. Fragmenting those institutions into tiny fiefdoms of choice doesn't help that cause, it hurts that cause. They want a singular, identifiable monolith that they can attain dominance over, and then spreadh their ideology downwards and throughout it.

    So the next time you find yourself frustrated while you... somewhat logically say, "Darn it, my lefty brethren, don't you see how this helps the kids maaan?", you'll understand why they reject your thesis in favor of a massive public school system run by an army of Teachers' Union Templar.

    1. libertarian: Don't you see, man, with school choice, charter schools and vouchers and shit, you can get your kid an LGBTQIA2+ friendly education.

      lefty: *sighs in frustration*. You don't get it, do you. I don't want to give MY kid an LGBTQIA2+-centered education. I want to give YOUR kid an LGBTQIA2+-centered education. And I won't stop until everyone gets an LGBTQIA2+-centered education.

      libertarian: Oh. Well, lemme think... *mumbles to self* Republicans are against this, and I don't want anyone to associate me with Republicans. I mean... Ted Cruz? Gross! *to left* Ok! You make a good point! ALLIANCE!

  12. Some times I wonder which of the two choices some of these people would choose:

    1) A society similar to the one we have but without conservatives, full of all the crony capitalism, coercive taxation and nanny laws.

    2) Or a truly libertarian world dominated by conservatives who don't approve of the LBGTQ!#$!%! agenda, and might even be a little racist, but who absolutely positively do not coerce anyone with their morals.

    Because I personally already live in areas totally 98% dominated by liberals, and I am fine with them being all proggy if they would just leave me the fuck alone. I don't get the feeling Soave, Shackford or ENB would take #2. They would rather live in their cloistered enclave and claim a desire for more liberty, but not minding if they don't get there since all the coercion in their life is stuff they prefer anyways.

    1. The only problem with thesis 2 is if we have a world without conservatives, it's going to get a LOT more racist.

      1. I think that's the point though. Would they rather have a country that coerces people not to be racist, or a country that has racists who live life being racist, but lack the ability to coerce them.

        I imagine that being gay in a society populated with bigots would be quite difficult. While they might not break the NAP with violence or other forms of coercion, a Gay person might find it difficult to live in a community where bigots are free to talk cruelly and to not do business with them.

        I think they truly fear such a world would come about, so while they talk about wanting liberty, they also want a world where their social preferences are accepted, otherwise people might choose to exclude them.

        1. a Gay person might find it difficult to live in a community where bigots are free to talk cruelly and to not do business with them.

          Imagine living in a country where your entire social media platform gets shut down because it's discovered, after a massive campaign of cancellations on other platforms, an outsized number of Trump voters sign up on your platform.

          1. Right, I am not trying to argue both sides here. As I said, I have lived and worked in 95% liberal communities and companies for nearly 30 years now. This is my day to day life- going into meetings where people just assume that you hate republicans, and where they straight up get religious people fired because they say stupid shit like "a woman's place is in the home." If you don't sign their green petitions, you aren't a team player. If you are a neighbor with a pickup truck, they look at you with suspicion.

            I am fine with that. If they would just leave me the fuck alone (free from coercion). I can keep my opinions to myself. I can nervously laugh and change the subject when they try derailing meetings. It's all a trade off for me- I get a fat paycheck, and put up with their stupid opinions.

            But I think these people like Shackford, Soave, or ENB are so used to living in those liberal bubbles that they JUST CAN'T EVEN begin to contemplate living in a libertarian society where conservatives are free to be conservative. For them, if their libertarian society is not also libertine, its a failure.

            1. Yeah, the libertarian vs. libertine divide is also very worthy of discussion. I think the people you named vary dramatically in regard to where they are on that. With Gillespie being the furthest on the libertine scale, and probably Soave and Slade being in the opposite side of it. Reason is, on average, more libertine though.

        2. I think there's a big split on how far you take that too. I'm trying to think how to phrase this...

          I think you would not likely get a large group of bigots in a truly open society, that was stable over a long period of time. But you likely would at the margins. This is a difficulty with police reform too. People aren't willing to accept that at the margins more crimes probably will go unpunished. People are more comfortable with more false convictions than false acquittals.

          What we seem to have now is a bit a Utopian moment where much of the culture has convinced themselves these trade-offs don't have to exist. And, increasingly, Reason itself is getting sort of TechnoUtopian. At least, that's the increasing feel I get. The Jimmy Wales interview up now is very Utopian, and its view doesn't get pushed super hard (at least so far as I've listened).

          And so, while I think your question is good and reasonable to ask, I believe that many would rebut it entirely and say we don't have to make any such choice.

          Does it make sense what I'm saying? I don't know. This idea of rising Utopianism in political movements is out there and I am having a hard time developing it.

          1. "I think you would not likely get a large group of bigots in a truly open society, that was stable over a long period of time"

            I actually disagree. I think in a truly open society, you will find people move and congregate into the affinity groups they want- much like happens on social media. When it is relatively easy for you to seek and find your "people" folks don't necessarily have to force each other to get along. If you are gay in a small religious town, rather than complain to the federal government to bring the kulture warriorz to town, you just move away and never look back.

            "And so, while I think your question is good and reasonable to ask, I believe that many would rebut it entirely and say we don't have to make any such choice."

            Yeah, I wasn't calling for an either or, but trying to reveal their preferences by forcing a difficult choice. If you had to choose, would you rather have liberal culture or libertarian society? I say that because personally, I grew up among the right, and am a lot more comfortable there. I live in Blue states, working in big tech, so I know what it is to be a Stranger in a Strange Land. But if I were asked to choose between libertarian society and conservative culture, I'd choose the former hands down. And I think this distinction is why the Blue Coast libertarians often seem more interested in fighting conservatives than anti-libertarians.

            1. I actually disagree. I think in a truly open society, you will find people move and congregate into the affinity groups they want- much like happens on social media.

              I think those are less stable over time though, and I think a lot of those are still on the margins. The big thing is it will shift, populations will move and people will do different things over time. Government is more often the cause of calcification than the solution.
              I also am not convinced there is really that many people who arrange their lives around bigotry. It's just too costly to be a bigot. I'm not clear we're disagreeing though. Might be a manner of degree, and I believe in what you said that "if you are gay in a small religious town... just move away and never look back."

              You comment about working on the Blue Coast is also interesting because I do think this type of Libertarianism you get there is different. It's something closer to "With Freedom we can have a perfect system of interactions" rather than "With Freedom, people can make their own choices, even if their preferences conflict."
              I still think I might be getting at the left libertarian/right libertarian divide. I don't know though. Talking with Tech Libertarians though often reveals pretty deep divides in thinking pretty quickly for me though.

  13. Yes.

    So let's focus on pushing for expansion of school choice and stop this idiotic pretense that public schools are bastions of free inquiry for the under 10's, that individual teachers are having their free speech and academic freedom rights stripped, and that governments can't decide what is and is not to be taught in government run schools.

  14. what's the choice? conformity factory, with new segregation!

  15. I agree. Part of getting school choice that is meaningful is going to require accepting that some students and parents are going to choose in ways other than what I would want.

  16. get rid of public schools entirely (this includes charter schools for those who dont know)

  17. This is cool, diversify choices, add competition, help fight the teachers' union, yada yada yada. All true.

    But thing that strikes me is that any parent who sends their little kid there, like a k or 1st grader, simply assumes they are going to be weak and need to be in an environment where "counseling" is readily available. Talk about an enervating and destructive start to life. Sheesh, I feel sorry to those kids.

  18. And then there's the poor metal kids in high school of which I was one. This makes me think of Bring Me The Horizon's "Happy Song". It kinda fits in on all sides here.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_0hipUBEhec

  19. Magic City Acceptance Academy

    Go prancing unicorns!!!!

    I'm going to say it every time I see that name.

  20. I can't help but wonder at the idea of a public school centered around the sexualities of children.

  21. I would be interested in knowing what, if any, fraction of children identifying themselves as LBGTQ change their mind in adulthood. I have known plenty of goths, vampires, satanists, wiccans, Jesus freaks, and others who changed direction about the time they moved out of their parents' house.

    Seriously--can anybody point me to credible study about this?

  22. "affirming"..pretty much says it all. Prediction..this place will be in the news for all the wrong reasons. I worry about the teachers they will be attracting. We have a sexual assault problem in regular schools today.

    Sexual preference is a personal decision and not in the list of what public schools provide. As for bullies..dealing with bullies is for most people something that had to deal with in middle school and teaches them important lessons in life.

    1. Ah, but if bullying is accepted as a part of schooling, then won't kids grow up to accept it as normal in grown-up life...And hence have the world of Mysticism, Statism, Collectivism, and Totalitarianism we have now and have had since time immemorial?

      1. You're suggesting the State defining what is bullying and handling it as they see fit is the better option?

        1. I've not just suggested, but demanded, that the bare minimum start to education reform is to abolish compulsory attendance of schools. Bullying can only happen with captive victims.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.