Making a mountain out of a molehill

Making a mountain out of a molehill is a common occurrence in societies and the recent “cross-dressing” event is a fine example. I will even admit unintentionally being a contributor but more important is, “Did anyone learn anything from the experience?” At first, I was being bombarded by the public, in e-mails and phone calls asking for something to be done to stop the “cross-dressing” at the elementary level and now Vergara and Jonas want to take it to another level in an attempt to justify themselves for their own gratification by making the activity a mountain in the news.

Although I’m writing for clarification and to try and end the “sensationalism” that is fueling the concerns about cross-dressing, someone will take this letter and try to add more drama. But for clarification purposes, I did send an e-mail to Dandan’s principal and all the people that were on the e-mail he sent to me. In that e-mail, I re-explained the “difference” between entertaining, learning experience and promoting homosexuality. I also explained that it was the “language of encouragement” that I was concerned about, with elementary students being involved. There are cross-dressing activities all the time at schools and even on Education Day but they have all been about entertainment and not the promotion of “sexuality.” This is why I said we must be careful where the moral line of demarcation is with these activities.

To answer Jonas’ questions of what the difference is between what happened at KHS on Education Day and at Dandan: Yes, the children at Dandan were innocently trying to have fun by cross-dressing and there was nothing wrong with that in the context of showing appreciation for the opposite sex. But the difference between all the other activities and Dandan was the “language of coercion” that accompanied the activity, as I told Jonas in a letter. The other activities were only “symbolism” for fun and entertainment, plus there was no language of coercion relating to sexuality or pimping.

You should also know Jonas that what took place at KHS and on Education Day was much more appropriate for the age groups involved and there was never a complaint. The statements by Jonas was “to express themselves and become free-spirited.” This statement is clearly associated with the public display of homosexuality. Jonas said, “The purpose of having this fun activity is to keep our kids spirited and motivated because we believe that they need to be relieved and feel free to do new things that will help them understand issues, foster unity and camaraderie among the children.” A boy doing new things dressed as a girl and a girl doing new things dressed as a boy implies homosexual behavior. I don’t care what you call it. Students don’t have to be dressed like the opposite sex to appreciate the opposite sex. What was the learning activity beyond cross-dressing that you didn’t mention Jonas? Jonas also said, “I feel so happy our students at a very young age have the self-confidence that will lead them to pursue their dreams. In this cross-gender activity, our students expressed no hesitation…and we’re very proud of them.” This statement and activity, based on your words Jonas, might be perceived in the wrong light by a young child and even influence her/his sexual development. There was nothing in the Dandan article about how these students learned to appreciate the role of the opposite sex. If you wanted them to appreciate the opposite sex then the activity should have demonstrated it through actions beyond dressing up because the language used is clearly contradictory or ambiguous at the least.

Jonas, you are responsible for children who don’t know their sexuality and haven’t sexually matured. The point I was trying to make is that you must be careful of where the lines are between education, entertainment and promotion—lines that are clear and we are well aware of when it comes to religion in education but they are not so clear with sexuality. It is apparent you still don’t get it, Jonas, even though it may not have been intentional on your part. You need to stop trying to rationalize what you did and think about you should have learned. What I did was entertainment and for you to wait two years to say something about me on Education Day speaks volumes. You should also be upset at the news media, not me, for starting this by “misrepresenting” the actual event at Dandan by calling it “Cross-Dressing” in their thirst for sensationalism when it was really “Gender Appreciation Day.”

Jonas, you should consider the words of the famous Flavor of Love: “If it don’t apply, let it fly.” This means that, if you weren’t promoting sexuality, you should have left it alone but it’s apparent you have a personal chip or a personal stake in this matter. I have nothing against “homosexuality” and I even have people in my family whom I love that are homosexuals. As for Mr. Vergara’s linking the chairman, the commissioner and myself with the issue, it was just another attempt to make the molehill a little bigger for the sake of drama and sensationalism. All three of us offered different alternatives and I will even admit that Dr. Borja offered the best solution when he suggested that parents become part of the planning, which will assure that activities meet their moral expectations.

In fact, principals should seek out parents’ input on matters that deals with topics of morality, especially at the elementary level, to ensure that these developing students are not getting mixed or wrong signals during these activities.

I truly believe it was not the purpose of the Dandan activity to promote homosexuality but in the end any rational person that understands “homosexual slang” must admit that the language used to describe the activity, as stated in the news, clearly promotes the “coming out of homosexuality”—not Gender Appreciation. Whose fault it was doesn’t matter, Jonas, because the lesson is that it shouldn’t happen again in the same form or context. The molehill isn’t going to get any higher so enough of these letters to individual people in the papers.