Sex Education Book For 2 Year Olds Features Gay Parenting

In an update to a previous Australian title baring the same name, “Where Did I Really Come From?” is a book aiming to offer children as young as two, frank, non-judgmental information on conception and pregnancy, and now includes a brief illustration of gay parents holding a baby as well as also explaining how two women might come to have a child through artificial insemination.

The Australian governmental body that co-ordinates literature for children have distanced themselves from the book saying they have, in no way, endorsed it, whilst religious group Focus On The Family are saying “Where Did I Really Come From?” is another way to push the “gay agenda”—yet some gay-rights groups have been left scratching their heads as to what the fuss is all about.

“Where Did I Really Come From?” is part of the Learn To Include program, a non-profit Australian organization that aims at publishing “inclusive” children’s books, including books about mixed-race couples and also same-sex parenting.

In “Where Did I Really Come From?” children are offered what the book terms as “age appropriate” descriptions of In-Vitro Fertilization, the stages of pregnancy, the process of birth, adoption and also a mention of surrogacy and what that means. After this follows a brief passage on babies being born into same-sex parented families. It should be noted that the book’s age bracket is surprisingly wide at the 2-12 year-old age range.

To give you a level of detail that the book contains, on dealing with the topic of two lesbian mums wanting a child, “Where Did I Really Come From?” says:

“Some women want to bring up a baby by themselves, or with another woman, so the baby gets two mums.”

The author of “Where Did I Really Come From?“, Narelle Wickham, has defended the book – which, whilst containing information on sex does not allude to the mechanics of gay sex at all (and nor should it because this is a book about how babies are brought into the world) – saying that, far from being radical, this book is just reflecting life today:

“It is just trying to normalize to children that there are many ways to conceive a child”.

This “normalizing”, however, seems to be at the root of what Focus On The Family find objectionable about “Where Did I Really Come From?“:

“It devalues the traditional family unit and at the very least desensitizes us,” said Focus On The Family spokeswoman Deb Sorensen.

The book was re-published with its updated subject matter on September 13, 2008 and the murmur of discontent has been gradually building ever since until yesterday when it reahed news reports including a piece in the Australian Daily Telegraph.

Pru Goward of group Opposition, said of the book, “There is nothing wrong with encouraging tolerance and diversity but why you would do that by talking about same-sex relationships? I find it a mystery.”

As rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people advance there are often calls from groups such as Focus On The Family that GLBTs are attempting to push a “Radical Homosexual Agenda”. “Where Did I Really Come From?”, they say, falls into that category. Does it?

Or is it that this book is more of a litmus test for how, today, the parental unit has evolved and it is this that Focus On The Family are really objecting to, but, as often is the case, the fact that the issue deals with GLBTs is incidental and a way for Focus On The Family to make their attack?

Or, on the other side of the coin, how much do children as young as two really need to know about the many ways that parents – hetero or homo – have babies? Is this not about gay and transgender parents at all, but rather about what it is acceptable to teach children and at what age?

Photo used under Fair Terms Usage with all rights to Learn To Include.

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Annmari L.

10:32AM PDT on Apr 19, 2010

And here we go again! Reactionary "family" groups trying to decide what literature parents should read to their children. Not far away from book burning there, eh FOTF? Children today grow up with their own couple of same gender parents, or close friends with twom moms or two dads. Naturally, they will ask questions and here they are priviledged with having a book that answers their inquiries. Parents from other generations would have welcomed any such literature. I can't see any quotes from real family groups, not the religious rights self endorsed family affiliation, but something more credible, but can't see any such reactions. Also concerning groups like FOTF are defending a dying constellation of nuclear families. Single households with or without children, children growing up with grand parents, in foster care or children's homes, same gender families, etc. The list can be made even longer. The diversity in family relations are much more than the constellations the FOTF tries to preserve. And let there be many more because when one fails others will persist. Fear from groups like the FOTF from losing their base for membership should not become the loss for other families to no have access to literature that will help foster children to be openminded, inclusive and democratic in their views of the world around them.

send a green star

Jacqui P.

12:10AM PDT on May 15, 2009

Itty Bitty - Thats not what I meant. I don't see it either. I was merely saying that many people fear things they don't understand...and for some that fear breeds hatred...cause we don't like being scared.

Not saying there was any hatred here. Sorry if thats how it sounded.

Sure, it's an age-appropriate thing. I get that. Which is why the reminder that 2year olds cannot read, so, if you are going to teach them about babies, etc, then you don't need to get into the IVF stuff - they won't know!

However, 2yr olds will ask why Joe Bloggs down the road has two mummies, when they realise that they have a mummy and a daddy. So, this book helps with that.

There is NO sexual component in it. It's just teaching diversity. What can be wrong with that?

Again - if you don't think it's age appropriate for a 2yr old - don't read it to them. It's for 2-12..so...leave it a little longer.

It's not that hard.

Past Member .

3:00AM PDT on May 9, 2009

Sorry Jacuie, Don't see the "projecting hatred" here. The comments I do see, which I strongly agree, is that this isn't age appropriate for 2 year olds. Though I haven't read the book, I don't think kids under the age of maybe 6 should be more informed about where they came from, outside of Love and generalized Birds & Bee's stuff. Heck, what happened to the stork? If toddlers are allowed to believe in Santa & the tooth fairy, being created out of love is just as wondrous ( hopefully more truthful), & should be enough for 2 to 6 year olds.

Too much detailed information early on seems like fueling the flame so to speak, at way too early an age. Too much explanation could turn into premature experimentation, which should be avoided as much as possible, under any scenario. This could force kids into drawing the wrong conclusion about themselves, as an effort to bond closer with a parent, or even kids their own age.

At an early age it IS necessary to instill tolerance & Acceptance of all good people, even if they are different. I wish Modesty would be too.

But I'm strongly opposed to "encouraging diversity" into such influential minds, not until there are signs of true maturity. Scientific reproduction should be taught in the school, with parental contribution at the pubescent age. It is at that age when sensitive topics such as sex, any sex, should be opened up & discussed with greater care than what I've witnessed in this day and age.

Nancy M.

1:36PM PDT on May 8, 2009

I don't have a copy of the book, I have only read the article. I have no problem with gay having kids and raising kids, and people using technology such as IVF.

Some of the reaction here is NOT based on gays or whatever, it is based on the two year old age listed.

I think one issue is the wide age range 2-12. I personally don't think there is an appropriate way to describe IVF or even sex to a two year old. Maybe it is because I didn't have brothers but I truly was not aware of alot of that till much older. If you think of it as a book for say 6 yrs olds, then maybe. Even at that age I had a hard time believing that my father did that to may mother. Throw in technology- OMG!

I guess I'd really have to see the book.

Jackson A.

1:28PM PDT on May 8, 2009

This is far from "explicit" and there's nothing "sick" about it. Nobody was having a fuss about teaching the "facts of life" to these kids before they started to add same-sex relationships to it, and the only thing they even mention is that sometimes lesbians have babies. What on Earth is everyone's problem!? I learned the "facts of life" when I was four, there was no "agenda" to it, I was curious about stuff and my parents told me. Two year olds are curious too. And queer people exist within that curiosity. Get over it.

Benji Y.

1:24PM PDT on May 8, 2009

So because a child doesn't have men and women in his or her life he or she won't be balanced? I don't know who originally said that... but, I hate to burst your bubble... there are a lot of children who only have ONE parent. Ever heard the term Single Mom or Single Dad? They grow up just fine. Well, not all of them. Then again, not all children with two parents do, either.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd get this book for a two year old. But, I see nothing wrong with it. Kids need to learn to accept same sex couples and bi-racial couples early on. The earlier we teach them too, the better they accept themselves if they end up falling in love with the same gender or someone of a different race. My mom raised me well. She raised me to accept ALL couples. No matter the gender, age or race.

"It devalues the traditional family unit and at the very least desensitizes us"

I had to say WHAT to this comment. Umm... the family unit was devalued years ago when the single mom became more common and divorce did, as well. Some people will never learn.

Steve S.

7:38AM PDT on May 8, 2009

It seems a lot of people aren't actually reading the article. It says the detail given is "age appropriate" and even provides an example about lesbian parenting. The description given says ""Some women want to bring up a baby by themselves, or with another woman, so the baby gets two mums."

I don't see what is too graphic about that at all. It is age appropriate wording. I think most people aren't reading the article but making automatic assumptions as to the book's content. It is not a medical journal. Kids as young as two will have questions. This book can give them answers in a way that they can understand, i.e. age appropriate.

Shannon G.

6:49PM PDT on May 7, 2009

I really dont know anyone that teaches the facts of life to a 2 year old. I am not sure that it is appropriate regarless if the subject matter is focused on same sex relationships or not. This person thinks that is just a little to early...but to each his own I guess.

Jaime J.

4:10PM PDT on May 7, 2009

Honestly, I think this should be reserved for sex education in middle school perhaps; I believe two is a little too young to discuss matters of this sort. Personally, I have a difficult time with this, because I realize, as a child of a single mom, that this issue goes deeper. I know NOT having a father was really detrimental to me as a young person. I believe both a father and a mother are necessary for every child. With that said, I am also wholly aware of the fact that in today’s society, a mother and father situation isn’t always possible. Divorce, death, abuse etc. can separate families. Every one of those incidents affects a child to one degree or another. Having two mommies or two daddies would also affect a child. What if the child was a result of artificial insemination? Would that child ever feel the desire to meet his/her other biological parent? Like adoption, a gay couple having a child does bring up some issues that the particular individuals should discuss before. And these issues, once sorted out, should probably wait to be discussed with the child until he/she is able to understand them.

Glenna J.

7:56AM PDT on May 7, 2009

Marena,
Thanks for explaining your no. I'm still unclear on the "people of the same ilk" - but at least I can understand what you are objecting to.

I think you have a valid point; and your opinion - even though different from my own - should never be dismissed as "fuddy duddy" or not worth anything. Please don't stop posting - how do we ever come to consensus or a middle ground where things get accomplished that way?

Yes, the age of reason...that is a good point. Too often, we bombard kids with a myraid of info and we launch into explanations that they may not really want. However, children mature at different rates and I believe it is the right time - when they ask and you know what it is they really want to know.

Most kids can not read before the age of 4. This is certainly not a book you would just hand a child. You are free to just talk about the pictures & not the subject matter & YOU are in charge of any book your child gets.

Some of the "values" from another era are sometimes needed - kids need experiences from all different kinds of things. I expect you can provide much love and knowledge and experiences - that is what is needed.