several days Ago, the movement #ConMisHijosNoTeMetas (CMNTM) returned to march in the streets of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru. The group came out of their homes, propelled by a fear explicit, and wrapped in a contradiction implied.
The fear is clear in their proclamations: the introduction of the “gender ideology” in the school curricula can “destroy the family” and “homosexualizar to the children” (if we summarize its message most repeated).
what does CMHNTM when he speaks of “gender ideology”? Apparently, a medley. Judging by what they say in their rallies, in the “gender ideology” will fit from the Forum of São Paulo to a great plot-atheist-marxist-international to end with the family. But if we try to find a kernel, and we focus on what more they repeat the spokesmen of the movement, it would seem that the “deología gender” is everything that questions the way as has been traditionally understood what it means to be a man or a woman, with a particular rejection of anything that could pose as a normal, natural or acceptable to homosexuality.
the contradiction, in contrast, do not seem to realize. Not that she ceases to be great. To declare something an abnormality that goes against the nature and, at the same time, assume that something like a force that is latent in children, ready to take possession of them or have been educated to see it as something acceptable. In the end, what risk could there be in teaching children not to reject homosexuality if it were not latent in them naturally?
And care that the assumption of the CMHNTM seems to refer to the vast majority – if not all – of the children. A sufficient number of them, in any case, as to that, if it lifts the social stigma, and homosexuality happens to be considered acceptable, “destroy the family [heterosexual]”. Something like that, lying by the wall, there would be those who do not pass the gay side of Berlin.
it Is curious how, in this way, the people that nurture and lead this kind of moves end up living in a world where what we most fear or most I hate is on all sides. Just around the corner (and the corner). So, you know, for example, Jair Bolsonaro, who in his interview with Ellen Page mentioned among the factors that can return gay people to the freedoms, to drugs, to which the children are around gay people, to the school distribution of material on LGBTI and, even, to “women working”. That is to say: any slip and “homosexualiza” the future.
If you show interest in using the reason, the #ConMisHijosNoTeMetas of the planet, while maintaining his vision of the homosexualdad as something bad, could be much more quiet. If the desire, affection and erotic could be generated or cancelled by “propaganda” (to use a favorite word of these movements) there is no way to explain why societies and Safirbet families in which the propaganda-gay is fierce do not seem to produce less gay the more liberal. A message or set of messages (even if it is “propaganda”) may convince a child to let out or repress an instinct, but can’t create a gut instinct that is not already there
The same thing if cotizaran something to the science. Even in the case in that his fear was not that “form” more homosexuals, but simply that they are desrepriman more people than they already are, would these movements to worry about. While there is a degree of desire homoerotic in almost all of the people (Freud believed that at all), this degree is prominent only in a minority. The serious investigations that most high put the percentage of gay people of the world population speak around 10% (and most are closer to 5%).
But of course, there may be required to CMHNTM who are interested in researching the theme of their protest because they have the conclusions a priori (and many times coming from the pen of God himself). As a result, they have to be cutting the “homosexualización” of the world in the streets. Make you think what was said by Seneca: all fool ends up suffering the punishment of himself.
The problem, however, is that the punishment does not suffer only themselves, but also innocent third parties, including, very particularly, for those paradoxes of life, to the children. Because, what is what is proposed by these movements for the case of sexual minorities? In the most (at least outwardly) peaceful cases, what they propose is what I answered a congressman spokesman for the movement when recently we discussed the topic: “leave them alone”. Which, of course, on the facts, it means maintaining the status quo. And the status quo in Latin America is homophobia; being, specifically, the issues related to sexual orientation one of the main causes of bullying in the region. What we propose for gays, including children who are, could be summarized more honestly: “that is joroben”.
In other words: don’t go just for that “not homosexualicen” to his children through a curriculum; the course also includes their right to have their children can grow up thinking, as in his time they did, that the man and the woman healthy or moral can only be heterosexual, and that homosexuals are, in consequence, some type of disease or aberration.
of Course, they rarely state what happens if the remembered children turn out to be gay. One can only imagine that it is based on who are parents that instill traditional values, if not religious, and in families so there is no homosexual children.
In reality, of course, theirs is a struggle that attempts to maintain a world in which, if their children are gay, will suffer a lot and, if they are not, they will have great chances to suffer a lot to others. In both cases, the #ConMisHijosNoTeMetas meddle with their children. And, on the road, collaborate to make the world a more unfair and more difficult for everyone else.
Fernando Berckemeyer is a peruvian journalist and former director of El Comercio newspaper.
