「同性婚姻是否合法化」近日又成為澳洲政客爭論的焦點，現任總理採納同黨前總理頒布的「全民公投」決定的政策，順理成章。但是反對黨反對「全民公投」。所以應該說「全民公投」與否才是爭論的焦點。

這些政客的態度變來變去，都是為了選票，我想不見得代表他們個人的真實觀點。依我看，選擇「全民公投」就是理性政客選擇的妥協方式。但是「全民公投」的費用成本太高，又成為「全民公投」與否的爭議藉口。

最近澳洲電視介紹一個從幼兒時就不認同自己生理性徵的女孩的變性過程，她現在大約二十出頭，開始接近政客為「變性」發聲。根據她的曝光率，我猜她已經被動或自動的走進政治之路的開頭。

昨天在電視看到泰國人妖舞團在墨爾本演出的廣告，中文的人妖被稱為 Lady Boy。

澳洲的社會風氣走向其實很透明，看電視就明白，因為媒體扮演的就是政治與社會的銜接。接受「變性」的需要，跟接受「同性戀」的觀點有沒有矛盾呢？

「變性」與「同性戀」是正常，還是不正常呢？承認不正常的存在，就像接受不同種族或不同宗教的現實，但是有必要視為正常嗎？

為什麼同性戀人口如雨後春筍的增加，已經接近氾濫程度。你每天出門，到任何地方，都會聽到有人聲稱自己是同性戀。這是不能逆反的事實嗎？我真的懷疑，我認為歸根究底，西方社會的性教育觀點難辭其咎。

人的生命來自父母，至於長成什麼樣的人就看教育。西方社會標榜性教育的先行，於是中學時代就開始推廣安全套。推廣安全套就是推廣性行為。我們都同意西方的孩子似乎身體比較早熟，事實上心理未必跟生理一樣早熟。而生理上的成熟速度也不是每個孩子都一樣的。

東方社會傳統上性觀念不開放，聽說有人結婚多年仍然不懂行房的新聞，究竟是微乎其微的少數。性的神秘似乎維持了性別的尊嚴，人們認知自己的性別也尊重接受異性的不同。這是兩性共存的自然生態。

青少年時期被動接受性教育，孩子的承受能力難免受到生理成熟度的影響。尤其是發育期的少年男女性徵尚未明顯，提早接受性教育能不覺得困惑嗎？因為困惑，於是有了「同性戀」的錯誤認知。因此今日的「同性戀者」氾濫，其實來自學校教育的惡果。

這是我個人的觀察心得，但願不久的將來會有學術研究證實我的觀點。

[2016-9-4 Heraldsun]

Anyway. The five-year-olds were marshalled into a room and story time began. Six picture books featuring transgender characters and concepts were read to kindy/prep and grade 1 pupils. The readings were conducted over five sessions and the kids were quizzed about what they made of it all.

Here is a passage from My New Daddy: “Mommy sat down with me and explained to me that nature had made a mistake and she should have been born a boy like me. After some time, my new Daddy went to see Doctor Voltaire again. He needed to have an operation to make him become a boy like me. Now I am a lucky little boy because my Mommy is my new Daddy.”

In the least surprising development in the history of academia, the researchers found many of the five-year-olds had no idea what the hell was going on. The answer the academics propose is to put more time aside to discuss transgender issues with the children, presumably by winding back on fringe pursuits such as spelling and arithmetic. The obvious problem is the ludicrously tender age at which such confusing concepts are being raised.

The message that should run through all the teaching of this stuff is tolerance. And that message should be conveyed at an age when kids are old enough to know what it is they are meant to be tolerating.

The Safe Schools issue went off the rails because it was hijacked by activists and third parties whose external teaching modules were either age-inappropriate or contained material that was so explicit or aberrant that it belonged on a porn site. Valid discussion of gender got caught up with a side debate about the discussion of sexual acts to kids, many of whom are not even sexually active.

This is what the PC extremists don’t get. They’re the ones who stuffed this up, not the fascists and the fundos on the Right. The people who champion this cause damaged this cause.

The lessons from a powerful program such as Australian Story get totally lost when you’ve got these nuts advocating an all-out assault on heteronormative thinking by borderline toddlers who can’t even tie their shoelaces.

David Penberthy is a Sunday Herald Sun columnist