False Dichotomies in the E.D. Debate
To hear some people tell it, the debate over the legitimacy of the dogmatic Parentist paradigm that has bullied its way to a monopoly over our public school curricula has only two sides: the jackbooted Parentists, defenders of orthodoxy and patriarchy, on one and the disingenuous fabricators of External Delivery Santaism on the other.
No, all sensible people know that ED is a load of fetid dingos’ kidneys. It’s a slap-dash hypothesis that has been falsified over and over, rescued only by the willingness of its supporters to ascribe ever more mysterious and subtle powers to their purported Deliverer, which we all know is just a code word for Santa Claus. ED is dead, get over it.
But what of the more subtle criticisms of Parentism? Until Parentists can individually refute each and every one of these competing and equally valid theories, they don’t deserve the stranglehold they have on the debate. We must not let them win a cheap victory by picking out only the weakest criticism of Parentism (i.e., ED) to dismantle and ignoring all the other proposed explanations.
Addendum: Let’s also not forget this blatantly unconstitutional pushing of Santaism that has proliferated under several US administrations. They put it up in the spirit of “fun” and inclusiveness, but all this research really does is fan the flames of the anti-scientific ED movement.