A Critical Analysis of the “Language Contamination Series” by Courage is a Habit - Part 2

This essay analyzes the problematic messaging in a Courage is a Habit resource on countering radical indoctrination in K-2 schools.  It reveals that most claims are oversimplified or unsubstantiated.  The author encourages the reader to question the credibility of those who distribute claims that are similarly unfounded.  It makes a convincing call for a shift away from divisive rhetoric and towards respectful and constructive dialogue, a shift that is exceedingly important in today’s internet age. (Read parts 1 and 3)

 

A Critical Analysis of the “Language Contamination Series” by Courage is a Habit

Part 2

5 “Contaminated Phrases”

The bulk of the information in the resource put out by Courage is a Habit on "Language Contamination" provides examples of “contaminated language” in the following format:

• A short title provides an example of the kind of language one might expect to hear. 
• It is followed by a short paragraph, implying the “extended context” that people mean when they use the language; the goal in pointing this out, as previously stated, was to help the reader avoid being “lulled into complacency or guilted into silence” and also to help them understand the manipulative “tactics” that people are using in saying these phrases.
• Then, each claim is allegedly supported by 3-5 comments by the same aforementioned Twitter user. Orange bingo pieces are arranged in a diagonal “bingo” across the Twitter feed, which seemingly implies the “ah-ha” moment that the creators of this document are hoping their reader has; the Bingo pieces reiterate the “true meaning” behind the words.

Here is an example of the kind of images that are seen:

As follows are the five claims of the pamphlet. Immediately following this section, I will examine each along with the comments that are used to illustrate the claim of “intended messaging”, arguing for the most part that the comments used to substantiate these claims do not actually do so.

Furthermore, I will examine the problematic nature of coming to such conclusions based on the information provided, disseminating it publicly, and including it in materials that may or may not be used to train some school board candidates.

The five examples of "Contaminated Language" are as follows, along with the comments and what appears across the "bingo pieces" to highlight the alleged intended meaning of these language examples.

Example #1

• PARENTS ARE THE ABUSERS
• Parents who have the most access to their children are ‘controlling’ and ‘grooming their own children.’ This same argument will be made against homeschooling.
• (bingo) PARENTS ARE ISOLATING THEIR CHILDREN

Example #2

• COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED
• Sexualize elementary school children. Comprehensive Sex Education, pornographic books, drag queen performances, and story hours.
• (bingo) SEXUALIZE CHILDREN EARLY WITH PORN

Example #3

• KEEP SECRETS FROM PARENTS
• Parents should not know 100% of what is happening to their children.
• (bingo) PARENTS ARE UNSAFE AND ABUSIVE

Example #4

• CHILDREN CAN MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS
• Children can consent to medical procedures and parents should not have access to that information. Breast binders and penis tucking is ‘no big deal.’
• (bingo) CONCERN IS JUST HOT AIR

Example #5

• TEACHERS KNOW BEST
• Teachers know best and should decide what secrets to keep from ‘unsafe and abusive’ parents.
• (bingo) PARENTS ARE ABUSING THEIR KIDS

Analyzing Example #1: 

"Parents Are The Abusers"

I will begin each part of this analysis by sharing the examples that Courage is a Habit gives as "language contamination" and follow it up with the Twitter commends used to support each example.

Courage is a Habit's first "language contamination" example:

• PARENTS ARE THE ABUSERS
• Parents who have the most access to their children are ‘controlling’ and ‘grooming their own children.’ This same argument will be made against homeschooling.
• (bingo) PARENTS ARE ISOLATING THEIR CHILDREN

Twitter comments Courage is a Habit uses to support this example:

• Think about who has the most access to a minor, who has the most legal control over them, and who has the biggest motivation to maintain that control. It isn’t teachers or drag queens. It’s conservative parents.
• You’re wrong. The reason kids get groomed and abused is because they don’t have safe spaces from their parents. People that are isolated and alone are easier to abuse.
• In response to, “A hallmark of being a teenager are claims of emotional unsafety. Taking advantage of this is frankly evil.” The comment says: Then tell parents to stop grooming them and isolating them from their peers.
• You’re making the assumption that parents are never complicit in abusing or grooming their kids. On the contrary, it’s the fact that they have such a privileged legal position in children’s lives that makes it easier to abuse them.
• No, it’s realistic. Think about the standpoint of abusive parents. They are going to be hyper focused on isolating their victims from any outlet. It’s very similar to how abusive spouses fight against any recourse their victim might have in leaving or getting help.Does what Courage is a Habit has to say about this rhetoric match the comments that it’s quoting? What are the implications of this claim of “language contamination”?

Analysis & reflection

The comments suggest that some parents may be controlling or isolating their children, which can be a risk factor for abuse or grooming, but this does not mean that all parents are abusive or that abuse is primarily perpetrated by parents.

It is a fact, albeit an extremely upsetting and unfortunate one, that some parents are abusers. In fact, it is absurd that the authors of this pamphlet would have the reader outraged when a speaker says “parents are abusers” as if there is a hidden meaning that attacks the group that the reader is a part of.

It would be naive to think this doesn’t happen; why wouldn’t we as community members care about protecting kids from abusive household situations?

The challenge comes when a whole group is stereotyped as a group that abuses. I think that this is what the authors of this pamphlet are trying to go for, but I don’t see that represented in a productive way in this claim.

Instead, the illustration here provokes an emotional, outraged response from the reader. It is concerning that this is prompted after an unsubstantiated claim; this makes me further doubt the trustworthiness of this information.

Strong emotions can affect us by making it more difficult to process information, thinking critically, learn new things and engage in productive conversation. It can also cause us to be defensive, which further shuts us down from listening to other perspectives. It makes it harder to not lash out or interrupt, and we're more likely to misunderstand people.

I argue that the type of rhetoric that is seen in this pamphlet is harmful for communities, because it furthers the divides and the misunderstandings.

If we are tired of the echo chamber, this kind of rhetoric is not the way to heal that problem.

Analyzing Example #2: 

"Comprehensive Sex Ed"

Courage is a Habit's second example:

• COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED
• Sexualize elementary school children. Comprehensive Sex Education, pornographic books, drag queen performances, and story hours.
• SEXUALIZE CHILDREN EARLY WITH PORN

Twitter comments Courage is a Habit uses to support this example:

• Elementary students should get comprehensive sex education though. There’s a correlation between teen pregnancy/STIs and a lack of sex education.
• If you’re referring to parents paranoid that other people might be “grooming” kids, then yes. We should be skeptical of TERFs, transphones, and hateful bigots that make their children’s lives hell in the name of political ideology.
• The parents are the ones grooming their kids, particularly the ones obsessed with the sexuality of their own children.

Analysis & reflection:

The claim being made here is that when people advocate for comprehensive sex education, that they are advocating for sexualizing children with porn.

Distributing this claim is serious; it spreads fear, it could lead parents to become distrustful of schools and educators, which can harm the well-being of children.  Not only does this claim spread fear, but it also spreads misinformation.

The comments here do not substantiate the claim that people are saying we should "sexualize" elementary school children with porn and drag. The first comment supports comprehensive sex ed as it's important to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs; it has nothing to do with porn or drag. The second comment agrees that parents should be skeptical about those who might harm their children, but again, it mentions nothing about porn or drag.

The third comment does in and of itself make an unsubstantiated claim ("the parents are the ones grooming their kids"); one reason why it is problematic is that it can shift blame away from the real issues and onto the claim that parents are somehow responsible. However, nothing again about porn or drag.

I'd like to highlight that I think it's important when discussing claims about "what people are really saying" that we should be careful to evaluate the reasoning behind these claims. While there are certainly valid concerns about protecting children from harmful exposure to sexually explicit material, we should also be careful to evaluate the evidence and reasoning behind any claims being made. In this case, the evidence isn't there.

By taking a thoughtful approach to considering the reasons behind someone's claim of inappropriate sexual content in a school’s curriculum, we can work towards protecting children and promoting their healthy sexual development.

Finally, linking comprehensive sex education to porn is not accurate; comprehensive sex education is concerned with providing age-appropriate information, and to promote health and well-being.

I understand the fear around some of these issues, because sexuality is a sensitive and charged topic as it is so intimately tied to people's beliefs and personal preferences. Also, many people have had to deal with trauma such as sexual violence or harrassment, and I can understand how these people would be on the lookout for anything that might expose their children to anything like what they have experienced.

I wonder if some of those who fear that schools are "sexualizing our children" may be motivated by a desire to prevent children from engaging in or being exposed to sexual behaviors that go against their personal beliefs. However I also recognize that this terminology can also reference the concern that children are being exploited or objectified in certain contexts, especially in the media, advertising and pop culture.

These are legitimate concerns, but my hope is that people can communicate these concerns without making the harmful claim that education professionals actively want to "sexualize children with porn". I think this statement should be avoided because it furthers the idea that “sex is bad” which could hinder a child’s healthy development, even leading into marriage, even if the child comes from a stereotypical Christian household where sex is seen as sacred and special, and something only to be shared between a married man and woman.

Children are sexual beings in the sense that they have a developing sexual identity and changing physical characteristics as a result of sex hormones. Also, children naturally will be curious about sexuality & may be tempted to explore it in ways that their parents or social groups don't approve of.

I think it is wise for schools to recognize this fact and partner with parents in helping children to make wise and healthy choices, while at the same time recognizing that effective approaches to sex education take into account different cultural and personal values.

Analyzing Example #3: 

"Keep Secrets From Parents"

Courage is a Habit's third example:

• KEEP SECRETS FROM PARENTS
• Parents should not know 100% of what is happening to their children.
• PARENTS ARE UNSAFE AND ABUSIVE

Twitter comments Courage is a Habit uses to support this example:

• It’s not a straw man, it’s exactly what you are arguing. You think parents should know 100% that is happening. I’m sure rapists would like to know exactly what their victims were saying too.
• It depends. Kids should feel safe having some degree of privacy from their parents. If they don’t feel safe coming out to their parents, it shouldn’t be on teachers to snitch them out.
• You don’t seem to understand. It is the teacher’s job to protect vulnerable students from their abusive parents. Why would you tip off some rapist instead of getting the authorities involved? Why violate the trust of a student by being a snitch?
• You said it’s not up to a teacher to have these kinds of conversations. But I’ve proven that’s not true.

The comments do not support the claim that people are saying teachers should keep secrets from parents and that parents are unsafe and abusive. Rather, the comments seem to center around the idea that children should be allowed some privacy from their parents. They also suggest that teachers have some responsibility to protect vulnerable students and even involve the authorities when necessary. These are reasonable claims, and in my opinion not ones that should result in outrage.

However, the messaging that Courage is a Habit puts out here is incendiary. It actively implies that school districts are keeping secrets with the malicious intent to deceive. This messaging is problematic because it can cause unfounded distrust between parents and teachers. It can also increase harmful stereotypes about the role of parents in their kids' lives.

For these reasons, I see this claim (that parents are saying teachers should keep secrets from parents) as founded more in causing fear and outrage, rather than productively trying to solve problems.

In cases where there is evidence that teachers are maliciously misleading parents, of course this evidence should be carefully considered and responded to thoughtfully.

However, given the unfounded nature of the messaging in this document, I have concerns about how parents might respond to receiving this material. There's a risk that they may react quickly and defensively due to their own biases, which could lead to a cycle of defensive behavior from teachers and staff, and increasingly aggressive behavior from parents who feel unheard.

I have some concerns about the messaging being conveyed in this context, especially given the potential for misinterpretation and distortion of the comments. This raises questions for me about the credibility and accuracy of the authors and their organization, and it makes me worry about the impact this information may have on those who believe it.

Analyzing Example #4: 

"Children Can Make Medical Decisions"

Courage is a Habit's fourth example:

• CHILDREN CAN MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS
• Children can consent to medical procedures and parents should not have access to that information. Breast binders and penis tucking is ‘no big deal.’
• CONCERN IS JUST HOT AIR

Twitter comments Courage is a Habit uses to support this example:

• Minors can already consent to many medical procedures already though. Acting like giving teens binders is such a huge problem is a bunch of hot air.
• What laws require licensing to distribute binders? You gonna get mad people sell minors Spanx without a license too?
• Gender Marxism? Lmao what a ludicrous term. If kids feel unsafe with their parents knowing something deeply personal why would you violate that trust? Like if they said, “my dad raped me” are you going to ask the dad if that’s true or contact authorities?

Courage is a Habit's message here seems to be: When parents say, "CHILDREN CAN MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS" they are saying that parent concern about these things are unfounded or insignificant ("just hot air"). Parents are making a big deal out of things. Breast binders and penis tucking shouldn't be a big deal. Parents shouldn't have access to the information about their children's medical procedures, and kids should be able to make medical decisions without interference from their parents.

It is reasonable, in my opinion, for parents to be concerned about this. Parents play an important role in their children's healthcare decisions, and I understand the concern that this role could be undermined. Also, calling breast binders and penis tucking "no big deal" is dismissive of the potential risks of these procedures.

At the same time, people disagree on the roles and responsibilities of parents and children when it comes to making medical and health-related decisions. Allowing kids to make their own medical decisions may help them to have a better understanding of their own bodies, helps them to become more autonomous and independent, encourages trust between kids, parents & healthcare providers, and can prevent harm that may result from delayed medical treatment. Also, if a parent is unwilling or unable to make a necessary medical decision, allowing the child some autonomy in this decision making process may be necessary.

Do the Twitter comments here illustrate the claim that Courage is a Habit says that they do? In this case, and it is the first example overall where this is true, I do feel that the comments illustrate the claim.

The first comment does suggest that minors can already consent to many medical procedures, thus giving teens binders isn't a significant problem. As a result, it is implied that parent concerns about this are unfounded.

The second comment suggests that distributing binders to minors isn't a significant issue since there may not be any laws that require licensing to distribute binders; binders are innocuous like Spanx (a body shaping brand of undergarments that smooths out the appearance of certain body parts), so if one is allowed the other likewise should be allowed.

The third comment suggests parents shouldn't violate their kids' trust if they confide in them about something deeply personal, like medical decisions. This comment does imply that children should be able to make these decisions on their own, even if it involves something serious like rape.

Overall, the comments support what Courage is a Habit is saying. However, Courage is a Habit's claim is still problematic, because it does not fully consider the complex ethical and legal questions involved in minors making medical decisions, and it overly simplifies a nuanced debate. Also, its use of provocative language serves to polarize the conversation, fostering an "us vs. them" mentality. This makes it increasingly difficult to have a productive dialogue and work towards solutions.

When people feel attacked or marginalized because of their viewpoints, they may become defensive and unwilling to engage in conversations that could lead to productive solutions. It's important to approach sensitive topics where both sides have reasonable concerns with empathy and respect.

Analyzing Example #5: 

"Teachers Know Best"

Courage is a Habit's fifth example:

• TEACHERS KNOW BEST
• Teachers know best and should decide what secrets to keep from ‘unsafe and abusive’ parents.
• PARENTS ARE ABUSING THEIR KIDS

Twitter comments Courage is a Habit uses to support this example:

• That’s a red herring though. The people pushing for transparency and parental rights don’t care about the safety of their children, they are just abusive control freaks afraid that their kids might have some outlet besides mom and dad to confide in.
• No, it isn’t. If you don’t like it, the block button is right there. If parents are abusing their kids then there’s no obligation to tip them off. As an educator in Florida this is extremely important.
• Teachers are mandated reporters. How does it protect kids to let abusive parents have access to this kind of information? Half of all homeless minors are LGBT. Think about why they no longer live with their parents.

I believe what Courage is a Habit is trying to say here is that when people say "teachers know best", the hidden context is that teachers know best and should decide what secrets to keep from 'unsafe and abusive parents'; and that what people are implying is that parents are abusing their children.

However, the three comments provided do not necessarily illustrate this claim.

The first comment is indeed critical of some parents, "the people pushing for transparency and parental rights" by suggesting that they are controlling & unconcerned with their children’s safety. However, it does not necessarily support the claim that teachers are implying parents are abusive.

The second comment does seem to support the idea that teachers should keep secrets from parents if they suspect that the parent is abusive. However, it is a hypothetical situation concerned with situations in which a teacher may need to prioritize a child's safety over a parent's right to know; it is not making a blanket statement that all parents or abusive, nor is it implying that teachers are saying that parents are abusive.

The third comment argues that teachers have a responsibility to protect children from abusive parents, particularly LGBTQ+ students, who are at a higher risk of homelessness. However, again, it doesn't state that parents are abusive, nor does it imply that teachers are saying that parents are abusive.

Overall, while the comments touch on the idea that teachers have a responsibility to protect vulnerable students, they do not strongly support the claim that Courage is a Habit is making here.

This claim is disingenuous, as it is dismissive of the real fact that there are some parents that are abusive. It also overlooks the fact that teachers do have a legal obligation to report suspected abuse or neglect, and that withholding that information from parents is not done lightly.

Thanks again for tuning in.  To read part three, the conclusion of this essay, please click here. Don't worry, it's not quite as long as part two ;)

Blog post by Molly Sturm.  Thanks for reading!