The bill “of orientation and programming for the reform of the school of the Republic” debated from March 2013 has just been adopted on 25thJune at second reading in the Senate. In particular it proposed teaching the theory of the gender at school. This theory, which was subject to a live debate in France since it was introduced in the books of eleventh grade in 2011, continues to be surreptitiously invoked by the ones and highly denounced by the others. Does the theory of the gender act concretely in France? Ludovine de la Rochère, president of the Manif Pour Tous, answers to Gènéthique.
G: The bill on the reform of the school was feared particularly for its article 31 relative to the teaching of the gender at school. Finally MPs did not adopt it. What did we escape concretely?
L. de L. : We escaped from a very serious danger for the child. Indeed, such a teaching would have led to discuss with the pupils the different dimensions of the – at least biological and social -sexual identity and to raise the questions of sexual orientation presenting them all on the same level. Obviously, challenging what the sexual identity is, blurring the benchmarks, providing details on the possible different sexuality, etc. is extremely serious for the children. In kindergarten and primary school they are in progressive construction of their personality. Concerning the description of different sexual practices, it can just deeply hurt them. this is not for their age.
Unfortunately, this is not because this amendment has been suppressed that the children are saved from any propaganda: the current Minister for National Education, explains indeed, in his book Refondons l’école, that “the fight against the stereotypes of gender and homophobia must be vigorously carried out, at all the levels of teaching” (page 128). Giving how insistent he is on this subject, it is of great concern that Vincent Peillon goes a step further.
In addition, the European deputies debate also right now a text on teaching the gender in the educational institution.
Thus we have to be very mobilized on this subject!
G: Does this rejection demonstrate a disagreement of MPs, and more widely of French people, on this theory?
L. de L. : Yes it does, it results from the opposition of a part of MPs, but above all from the refusal of public opinion. This step backwards is the fruit of the great mobilization of this year 2012-2013 against Taubira law, MAP for all and surrogacy. This ideology is indeed the foundation of Taubira law. This is why, from the beginning of the movement, it has been clearly identified as such and shouted down on the banners and in the slogans of the Manif For All.
This way, this step backwards has been presented as a will to bring about peace, under which Vincent Peillon asked the deputy Julie Sommaruga to withdrawn her amendment.
Nevertheless, we know at what point the Power is able to cheat. Particularly it can play with words: the famous program of Life and Earth Science (SVT) of eleventh grade, for instance, had a new chapter “Devenir homme ou femme” (becoming a man or a woman). This is this ambiguous title which allows publishers to introduce the questions of gender on their books.
G: Is the homosexual marriage not a very concrete emanation of this integration of the theory of the gender in the French society?
L. de L. : It is clear that legalizing the homosexual “marriage”, is to consider that a couple formed by two men or two women is the same as a man-women couple, and thus that the sex does not matter, contrary to the sexual orientation. This way, the homosexual “marriage” is part of the consequences of the theory of the gender and thus its unconscious impregnation by French people.
But it is also the consequence of the egalitarian obsession, which is prior to the construction of the theory of the gender. Equality is what already Marxism claimed! For decades, equality became an end in itself, an absolute. This famous equality has been the leitmotiv of Mr Hollande and Miss Taubira. The drama is that equality has no sense when we compare what cannot be compared. Concerning the procreation, two men or two women cannot be equal to a men and a woman. But the protection of the future children is the raison d’être of the civil marriage.
To come back to the theory of the gender, it goes even further. It comes from a radical feminist current. At the beginning supporting the equality between man and woman, it comes to say that the man and the woman are not really different, that in fact it is the society which increases or creates these differences, to limit women to subaltern roles. This way, the sexual identity would not be related to the biologic sex but to the surrounding culture. This is why we use more and more the term “gender” which designates the social dimension of the sexual identity, instead of the term “sex”.
G: The government is associated for the fourth consecutive time to the promotional campaign of Ligne Azur . Moreover, Vincent Peillon wants to establish sex education to children provided by gay associations. What is the purpose of all these initiatives which follow on?
L. de L. : The first purpose has been publically announced by Vincent Peillon in an interview to the newspaper Journal du Dimanche. It deals with “extracting the child from all the familial, ethical, social and intellectual determinisms” (interview of 1st September 2012). The second purpose was also made by the same minister: It deals with “producing a free individual, free from all the political, religious, familial, social tutorships” (Refondons l’école, Vincent Peillon, page 12). The earlier the propaganda starts, the most efficient it is!