Are conservatives conflating teaching kids about sex with encouraging them to have sex?

From here:

So the Austin, Texas school system recently passed a controversial sex ed program that allegedly includes “abstinence.” Here’s what one pro-family activist there told me: “Yes, anal and oral sex with graphic descriptions of both are included in a sixth-grade classroom activity in which eleven-year-olds are given 20 cards of various activities and made to discuss which ones are abstinence. Not only does the lesson explain anal and oral sex, it counts as material that is about abstinence required by law in Texas.”

 

California parents are just waking up to the horrific legislation passed several years ago — California’s “Healthy Youth Act” — mandating deliberate corruption of the state’s kids with X-rated subjects and pro-”LGBT” messages.

 

Respect” means normalizing early sex, graphic details of sex acts, and lessons with same-sex role-playing scenarios.

 

Granted the story was false but they believe early sex has to be the goal

The question and quoted content touch on whether conservatives are conflating the teaching of sex education with encouraging sexual activity among children. Below are some logical fallacies and cognitive biases present in the arguments made in the quoted content:

1. **Straw Man Fallacy**: The argument implies that sex education programs, such as those in Austin, Texas and California’s "Healthy Youth Act," are designed to corrupt or inappropriately influence children. By equating sex education with encouragement to have sex or with "corruption," the argument misrepresents the actual intent and content of comprehensive sex education programs, which typically aim to provide factual information, promote safe practices, and discuss consent.

2. **Slippery Slope Fallacy**: The language in the quote suggests that teaching about different sexual practices inevitably leads to inappropriate or early sexual behavior among children ("mandating deliberate corruption" and "normalizing early sex"). This fallacy assumes a direct and inevitable escalation without providing evidence that comprehensive sex education causes children to engage in sexual activity earlier.

3. **Moral Panic**: The rhetoric used is indicative of a moral panic, which is when public fears or anxieties about an issue are heightened disproportionately to the actual threat it poses. Describing educational content as "X-rated subjects" and "graphic details" can evoke emotional reactions rather than rational discussion, and might exaggerate the nature of the curriculum.

4. **Confirmation Bias**: The argument presented seems to be based on selective evidence that supports a particular viewpoint (i.e., that the sex education curriculum is harmful or overly explicit) while potentially ignoring evidence that might contradict this perspective, such as studies showing that comprehensive sex education can delay the onset of sexual activity and promote safer practices.

5. **Appeal to Fear**: The argument taps into fears of parents about their children’s well-being by using loaded language that implies significant harm or moral decay. This appeal to fear attempts to persuade by inciting concern rather than through logical reasoning.

6. **False Dichotomy**: The narrative implies there are only two options: teaching abstinence or providing explicit sexual education that encourages early sexual activity. This excludes the possibility of balanced education that includes information on abstinence along with other important aspects of sexual health and respectful relationships.

To have a more productive discussion on this topic, it's important to consider empirical evidence about the outcomes of various sex education programs and to ensure that arguments are based on accurate representations of the curriculum being discussed.