seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
What's messed up about this, exactly?
yes, at least the coastal region.
It allows "transgender" students to choose which bathrooms to use, which sports in which to participate. here's the problem: by "transgender" they mean what a person identifies with as a gender, not their physical gender. So if a child who is a boy simply asserts he "feels like a girl" he can use their bathrooms, locker room, go out for their sports teams.
So what happens when a middle school or high school boy declares himself a girl and insists on using the girls showers? In California you have to let him use those showers. I see a lot of "transgender" kids coming out in Cali in the near future. lol. Gay and Lesbian activists will cringe at that joke, claim I don't understand their plight, fine, but it's going to happen, and sorry but I don't accept that a 10 year old child (or 15 years old) has the state of mind to make such decisions with the gravity that requires others tolerate such invasions.
They'll point out that a boy or girl so identifying is subject to so much abuse and bullying they wouldn't do it for the cheap thrill of using the other bathroom, and maybe that's right, but some will still try it and regardless it ignores the issue of the rights of those who have to now accept another gender in those situations.
Pesonally I find it beyond ridiculous. I really don't care what you dress like, how you think of yourself, and in fact may be the most accepting man in my social group of such things (I do vacation in Key West after all), and I find this absurd. You can behave any way you want, but you cannot pass a law against gravity or anatomy, and until you start cutting stuff off and adding things on the definition of "male" and "female" for purposes of bathroom and locker room assignments is cut and dried. I also don't accept that a 6 year old or 10 year old has reached a developmental state where you can declare them "transgender" or anything else in terms of sexual orientation, at least not enough to dictate this kind of policy.
The idea that a girl would have to put up with a boy showering with her or sharing a school bathroom simply b/c HE wants it is insulting to her rights and at the ages we're discussing I fail to see enough pressing proof that he is a "girl" in some metaphysical way to force everyone else in the bathroom or shower to sacrifice their rights and self image.
Schools may develop policies where a child has to dress like the gender, etc. but that won't hold up long. It'll be a running mess.
I also find it particularly offensive beyond the sexuality issues in that men and women are genetically different athletically and that doesn't change with your clothing choices. Boys will be able to beat out girls for spots on sports teams b/c on average they will be bigger and stronger and faster. If I'm a feminist I'm losing my mind on this one.
Mostly I see this as the indulgence of some parents who are trying to define their kids as "transgender" at ages where they don't even understand their situation, a new age nonsense about letting kids pick their gender as if it wasn't at least initially assigned by basic genetics.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Ask the parents of the girls who will be showering with the "girl" who has the penis. lol. it's going to be fun in a very dark way to watch the years of legal wrangling that will result.Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Honestly I feel most bad for the kids who are "transgender". Some are no doubt going to develop a different sexuality, but many of those involved in the situation in California aren't really transgender but are simply being left without guidance by parents who don't want a "gender forced on them" by the fact they are born male or female. Seems an odd approach to take to guiding a child to their life choices.
A 6 year old shouldn't even be given choices over what they eat or don't eat for the most part,much less what gender path they will follow at that point in their life. They have no ability to make such decisions any more than they can choose a balanced diet without guidance from a parent.
This is a bizarre extension of the hyper-permissive parenting model that has generally shown to be a failure. Trying to reason with small children as if they have the cognitive ability of adults, allowing them to make choices that are a parent's responsibility, complete bans on any kind of physical punishment for bad behavior, essentially a constant indulgence of the child and its whims as if that whim has some deeper cosmic meaning we can't suppress lest we destroy their future.
it's in the same extremist indulgence "child as center of the universe" mentality that has people breastfeeding 12 year olds. By the age of 2 it's time for each human to start learning they are not the center of the universe, they will not be given nothing but love and understanding and support for any indulgence or life choice they make, and they need to see outside of their own narrow perspective and wants.
I really do feel worse for the kids than anyone else. These parents are by and large wackos, yet they get a law passed. parents who spank their kids these days and insist on proper behavior and obeying the rules of society get theirs taken away. Funny world we've created.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
To be clear, respecting a child and discussing decisions with a child is not "permissive parenting", and I think such respect is important. The child cannot play with toy X in the house. It's not always enough to say "b/c I said so", but the answer is to explain why but NOT go so far as to let the child make that decision. it's not theirs to make. Explaining why, discussing with a child and treating them as a sentient being is different from permissive parenting where you essentially absolve yourself of parenting responsibility and let the child "find their own way."
At each stage of a child's development they are given more latitude in their choices, and at some point are given complete latitude, but it is gradual and in stages and you move from one to the other as they show they have learned the lessons taught by the parent in how to use that power responsibly.
That's now how this situation is working in California. What we have there is parents dressing their male child in dresses and sending him to public school then being outraged when he gets the crap kicked out of him. I really don't find that to be sound parenting at all.
There is a point at which a person should have the right to choose their sexual orientation, but this law a) forces that orientation on those who don't share it in a very invasive and personal way, and b) places that choice in children who cannot at this point make such a decision nor should their parents necessarily make it for them (see (a) as to why).
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Parents who lack the intellectual ability to properly explain the concept of trans* people to their offspring are not my problem. The same way parents who can't explain the concept of homosexuality to their kids are not my problem. Neither should they be the problem of parents and kids who identify, or are allowed to identify, as a gender other than what society would demand.
You should feel bad, but because these kids will be subject to ridicule and bullying that they do not deserve. Not because they "lack guidance" or because their parents are "forcing" a gender identity onto them. Both of those beliefs are nothing more than cis gender privileged twaddle.Honestly I feel most bad for the kids who are "transgender". Some are no doubt going to develop a different sexuality, but many of those involved in the situation in California aren't really transgender but are simply being left without guidance by parents who don't want a "gender forced on them" by the fact they are born male or female. Seems an odd approach to take to guiding a child to their life choices.
Wrong. Never heard of a little boy that would rather play with Barbie dolls? Or little girls who like to play in the mud with trucks? Gender identity is not a choice anymore than sexuality is. Believing it's a concept that is or should be relegated to post-pubescent "adulthood" is damaging to people who will be forced to conform to outdated notions of gender for their entire childhood. Which is wrong.A 6 year old shouldn't even be given choices over what they eat or don't eat for the most part,much less what gender path they will follow at that point in their life. They have no ability to make such decisions any more than they can choose a balanced diet without guidance from a parent.
The rest of your post was red herring nonsense.
Last edited by BigBlueBrock; 08-12-2013 at 07:40 PM.
Interestingly you mentioned gravity, and a young boy trying to pull off the "I'm a girl" thing will be tested in the shower. As a junior high kid I personally would have failed the gravity test in a shower with a bunch of girls unless of course I could have labeled myself a lesbian in a mans body with an erection harder than five dollars worth of jawbreakers.
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
BBB, calling another's post "nonsense" isn't exactly respectful discourse.
this isn't about "explaining", this is about finding a balance that respects the choices and rights of ALL people. No one gets an absolute right in this deal, we have to compromise. Just b/c someone thinks they are a "girl" doesn't give them an absolute right to be treated as one no matter how much it impacts the beliefs and rights of everyone else. We don't allow people to go down the street nude b/c a person just wants to be nude, we don't allow people to have sex on the street corner b/c they want to, there are SOME rules of public behavior to which we all adhere as a BALANCE between our views.
I could be just as flippant as you and say "parents messing with their kid's heads about their sexuality before they are old enough to walk aren't my problem". What's the difference?
"Gender identity" is a modern psychological creation that is still hotly disputed within the discipline, and it is completely unclear that it forms at such early ages and even more unclear that we can identify it. I played with "action figures" as a child, dolls for boys, should my mom have seen that and run and put me in a dress or told my school I was 'transgender'? Now that would be nonsense.
As I said, some of those being declared by their parents as "transgender" at such early ages will grow up to have a non-hetero lifestyle of one kind or another, but some will no doubt have been "mis identified". You use the example of "tom boys", girls who like to play in the mud. You do know that 90% of them grow up to be heterosexual right? So how good is that indicator of what their real gender identity will be as they mature? It's a LOUSY predictor of their orientation, so why would we look at a girl playing with Tonka trucks and throw out her dresses or stop raising her as a heterosexual girl when it's still highly likely she's a heterosexual girl?
What standard do we use for this determination? The 7 year old says she's a boy or he's a girl? Do we go with the parents on it? how do they know? b/c like you they saw her play in the mud one day and decided she's lesbian?
I find that view as sexist and stereotyping as any traditional approach to raising a boy or girl as male or female. Defining someone at the age of 6 as 'trans gender' is just as pigeon holing (and far more difficult on them) as simply sticking to male and female roles.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
At this point "lesbian in man's body" would probably work in San Francisco. lol.
There's a strong disincentive for a person to declare themselves 'trans gender' even with this law, but by deviating from a 100% clear standard for separation of the sexes it's going to open up all kinds of debates and subsequent legal action.
The bathroom/shower thing is really not going to be where it hits the fan IMO. It's going to be when a trans gender boy gets a spot on a girls sports team and a girl and her parents think that spot on the roster was hers.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Neither are the base attitudes in regards to this issue, as demonstrated by your jokes.
This has nothing to do with public nudity or sex. We're not talking about people running around naked. This is a matter about how and where a trans* person use the bathroom with the least amount of ridicule. They're not not going to get away from bullying for a long time, society hasn't gotten that far. Patriarchal ideals of gender and sexuality still run far too deep for LGBT people to escape ridicule, but that's another discussion.this isn't about "explaining", this is about finding a balance that respects the choices and rights of ALL people. No one gets an absolute right in this deal, we have to compromise. Just b/c someone thinks they are a "girl" doesn't give them an absolute right to be treated as one no matter how much it impacts the beliefs and rights of everyone else. We don't allow people to go down the street nude b/c a person just wants to be nude, we don't allow people to have sex on the street corner b/c they want to, there are SOME rules of public behavior to which we all adhere as a BALANCE between our views.
The difference is your example assumes gender identity doesn't start at a young age. It also assumes that parents "forcing" a trans* identity onto a cisgender kid is a common enough thing to be concerned about. I'm sure it happens, and it's despicable if it does, but far more likely are parents who force a traditional gender identity onto a child that may not feel like that gender identity. In fact, that's the way society has been for thousands of years. Parents force traditional cisgender identities on their kids, not the other way around.I could be just as flippant as you and say "parents messing with their kid's heads about their sexuality before they are old enough to walk aren't my problem". What's the difference?
Again, you're assuming parents are forcing boys to identify as girls and vice versa, as opposed to parents allowing their kids to express themselves however they feel like it. Wrong. Ask a trans* person how long they felt "odd" about their gender identification. Like many homosexual people, those feelings start early. Just like I knew I loved women and titties since I was like 7 years old, many trans* people have felt "different" since a very young age. The only reason you don't believe this is the case is because you've been conditioned to believe that is what makes sense. "Children don't know their proper gender." "Children don't know their sexuality." Both of those statements are wrong."Gender identity" is a modern psychological creation that is still hotly disputed within the discipline, and it is completely unclear that it forms at such early ages and even more unclear that we can identify it. I played with "action figures" as a child, dolls for boys, should my mom have seen that and run and put me in a dress or told my school I was 'transgender'? Now that would be nonsense.
Gender and sexual orientation are separate matters. A transwoman (man who gender-identifies as a woman, both pre- and post-op) may be just as into women as you or I. Is she a lesbian because she identifies as a woman and is attracted to women, or is "she" straight because physiologically, "she" is male? The correct answer? She is whatever the hell she says she is and that's what we go with.As I said, some of those being declared by their parents as "transgender" at such early ages will grow up to have a non-hetero lifestyle of one kind or another, but some will no doubt have been "mis identified". You use the example of "tom boys", girls who like to play in the mud. You do know that 90% of them grow up to be heterosexual right? So how good is that indicator of what their real gender identity will be as they mature? It's a LOUSY predictor of their orientation, so why would we look at a girl playing with Tonka trucks and throw out her dresses or stop raising her as a heterosexual girl when it's still highly likely she's a heterosexual girl?
Gender/sexuality confusion again. We go with what the girl or boy says. Because they're the ones that do or do not feel like they identify with their physiological sex. Simple. But doing that requires that we believe people are more self-aware at a young age than many do. That's uncomfortable for many people, but that's the direction things are moving.What standard do we use for this determination? The 7 year old says she's a boy or he's a girl? Do we go with the parents on it? how do they know? b/c like you they saw her play in the mud one day and decided she's lesbian?
No, it isn't. No one is identifying their gender for them. They're making that determination for themselves.I find that view as sexist and stereotyping as any traditional approach to raising a boy or girl as male or female. Defining someone at the age of 6 as 'trans gender' is just as pigeon holing (and far more difficult on them) as simply sticking to male and female roles.
There is nothing "messed up" about allowing trans* people to use whichever gender restroom they identify best with. The truth of the matter is this is likely a far bigger problem in middle and high schools, than in K-6 schools. But given the fact that many girls and boys start puberty as young as 10 (my ex-wife is one such example), it's not out of the realm of possibility that a 9-year-old physiological male doesn't "feel" like a boy. That should be OK and it he should be able to use the girl's restroom if that's how he feels.
BBB, you display an amazing lack of knowledge about children. A couple of years ago girls labeling themselves as gay became a fad at our middle school. When this did not have the shock value they thought it would they decided to no longer label themselves as gay.
The problem with the progressive movement in places like California is they push the girl who plays with Tonka trucks and the boy that plays with dolls into a transgender label when the reality is that the choice of toys has little to do with gender.
Gender identity is heavily influenced by interactions with others, and by social interactions. Laws like the one passed in California will push children into into being labeled unnecessarily.
I'll try to summarize a bit as I'm going to be away from the computer for a while --
My "joke" was to make a point, more particularly to set up the point that was going to be made so I could respond, not to get a laugh. I only find this entertaining in the same way I find most politics entertaining, which is in a decidedly non-funny way. Mostly for the kids who I think yes in many cases are being done a disservice by their parents by replacing one unfair pigeonholing with another.
I sincerely don't find it "funny" and do apologize if taken that way. I think the body of my posts makes it clear I don't find this terribly funny, least of all for the kids involved.
So you're saying a biological male can identify as a woman, entitling him under this law to use the women's bathroom, but still be attracted to women. You expect this to make anyone feel better about the situation?
Yes, the nudity example is a good one, not b/c I'm saying this is letting them run around nude but b/c it is another rule we have about behavior that requires people to conform to a behavior with which they may not agree. We don't allow it b/c it is considered too offensive to too many people. We don't allow public nudity, public sex, etc. not b/c they are a danger to others but b/c we tried to find a balance between what people can do in public and what they can do in private.
that's the libertarian mantra: out of my bedroom and my wallet. It doesn't say out of my way b/c I can do whatever I want and you have to watch.
yes you are right, while I have no doubt children are developing their orientation at an early age, as they are developing all of their personality, your examples point to just how difficult it is to really gauge what those orientations are and will be, and no I do not think a 6 year old has any more ability to understand and express those feelings than they have the ability to understand and express what career they will choose b/c they show interest in history or music. They may identify as more "male" or "female", i.e. a tom boy, but even to them they don't know if that means they will end up being hetero or lesbian or whatever else. SOME may know, many more will not.
Does that mean they should be able to develop and figure it out? Yes, absolutely. Does it mean the rest of society and other parents and children have to bend all of their values and beliefs and rules to allow it absolutely without bounds? No, absolutely not.
There are limits to that exploration, a balance to be reached between those of different views. Thus while some think nudity is natural and healthy, we ban it in public. Some think cursing is just fine, yet we ban it across the public airwaves according to social concerns about children being exposed to it. There's no physical "harm" to be done, we simply compromise on our social mores to function.
I'm more sensitive to LGBT issues than most you'll meet, but I don't believe in tyranny of the majority OR the minority. The majority cannot force the minority to behave absolutely the way they think is right, but neither can the minority force the majority to change their behavior to absolutely accommodate the minority. Some of my LG friends agree, others don't, but as Mr. Garrison said this is about us all tolerating each other so we can function, not about embracing our likes and dislikes.
The way this is most easily solved is the difference between public and private behavior. Privately you can be nude, have sex, have any orientation you wish in any way you wish. In public however we have to observe some broad rules so we can all function together. Defining bathroom use by your physical parts, esp. for children, seems a far more clear and balanced approach than what California is legislating.
IMO what is best for the child is to keep their options open and teach them the requirements of social norms that they can choose to conform to or ignore increasingly as they age. You as a child are taught what is "acceptable" in society and what isn't, and it goes far beyond orientation. What clothes to wear, how to speak, politeness, manners, it's a huge amount of social norms the person will need to know in order to advance in society.
As the child ages he/she can choose to ignore or bend those rules as they choose, but starting them out without knowing those rules and how to navigate them is a disservice. Yes it offends some of my LG friends but I see rules like this about which bathroom to use as no different than knowing that if you get neck tattoos and show up in flip flops you are unlikely to get the job offer. There's no value judgment on it, it is simply how things work and it is a disservice to a child to not give them all the tools possible to succeed in society and let them choose their path (and the compromises they may make or not make) with full box of tools and full awareness.
At the age of 6 I would no more let my child "choose" their bathroom than I would let them choose to date or get tattoos or a piercing. I may choose based on the situation, there may be some few cases that are obvious and in fact there are some genetic cases where children are in fact born hermaphodidic, but by and large at that age we are going to learn how to function in society and give them the ability to do so to the best of my ability, and they can then as they age do with that as they choose. But they will know which bathroom to use, how to speak without sounding like a hick, how to dress, etc.
I will not present them some dream world promise that only leads to their suffering in life b/c they were told to "be whatever they want" without understanding that such choices can be a living hell. They aren't ready for that at that age, so we'll keep a bit more in the center of the road.
Here's what it comes down to: be it sexual orientation or anything else, few people go through this life without compromising "who they are" or "who they want to be" to simply survive. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, so don't sugarcoat it or leave them without the tools to deal with it when it happens, and it's likely to happen more than once in life. Conforming to the bathroom based on your chromosome set isn't even the beginning of what you'll have to learn to manage in life.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 08-12-2013 at 09:35 PM.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
I haven't had time to read the bill, or review or think about what it means. I don't actively advocate for LGBT rights, but I believe in them and support them and their organizations. Hey, you live in New Orleans and Miami, and participate in local theatre boards and such, you're bound to be exposed to alternative lifestyles, and see it's nothing to fear, and people are people are people regardless of sexual orientation or preference, goodness gracious.
But individual rights end when they impact others in an adverse fashion. That doesn't mean making an adult uncomfortable because "they don't like that kind" of person. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?
I'm not positing an opinion, because I really don't know what mine is yet and I'm too darn tired to figure it out, but I had to add this.
When I read some discussion earlier, it reminded me - no analogy to be drawn here, just a silly memory - of an old SNL skit with Dan Akroyd. Remember the one where he was the President of a "toy company," and the "toy company" was one that sold things like, "bags of broken glass?" It was hysterical watching him defend his company's toys by comparison to other dangerous toys like dolls and toy phones.
Side note--one of the toys he compared it to, as time would tell, would probably have been a toy that *was* recalled for safety purposes for precisely the reason he suggested. I seem to remember him grabbing a toy princess phone, and wrapping the cord around his neck, indicating it was a choking threat. I could be wrong, but I think the FTC did order a recall on those type of phones for that reason.
Sorry if somebody draws an analogy there; I don't intend it. Just reminded me of a funny SNL skit I hope somebody else is old enough to have seen and remembered.
Carry on.
Last edited by Darrell KSR; 08-12-2013 at 09:46 PM.
Here is a good example of transgenderism being more of a fad than reality.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...jgsjpBdmZklrtM
Parents involved in this in many cases have started before they had a child with the principle that they weren't going to "define" the baby as male or female. they avoided the blue versus pink thing, dress the child in gender neutral clothes from the start, and otherwise actively avoid "stereoptypes".
then they wonder why by the age of 2-3-4-6 etc. that the child doesn't identify as "male" or "female". How could they? Theyv'e been given no point of reference, no basis on which to define themselves in those terms.
No doubt there are some children who at an early age do not fit the gender norms, I have no doubt about that being the case, but it is a known and verifiable fact that parents involved in this have in many cases started setting up their child's confusion before they even had a child. They have no idea what the traditional roles even are, how can they choose to accept or reject something they don't even know exists?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Darell I love that skit. It was Mr. Mainway of Mainway Toys IIRC. Loved the halloween costume ones. The soldier one came with a real M-1 Garand rifle. Johnny Spaceman was a plastic bag with a rubber band that went over your head. Human Torch was oily rags and a lighter.
Didn't know about the phone being recalled, that may be the biggest irony of all time.
Re the "don't like it" part of your post, that's exactly my issue with it. this isn't a "dont' agree with the lifestyle" thing, this is a "my 6 year old who I don't think is ready for seeing the other gender naked just has to deal with it as do I b/c of a law". I'm not ready to force that on the other children or their parents. There's no balance of social norms in that at all, no respect for how other parents choose to raise their kids.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 08-12-2013 at 09:55 PM.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Oh I'm sure it makes people all sorts of uncomfortable. It made people uncomfortable when blacks were given equal protection under the law, when women were given the right to vote, when white Southerners were told they couldn't segregate schools, when white Southerners were told they couldn't make interracial marriage illegal, when they created the first interracial army unit, when they started accepting women into the military, and just recently when DADT was abolished and homosexuals could be open in the military. Do you know how much I care about how comfortable people are with this? Zero. Not at all. Don't like the idea of trans* people? Too bad, get over it. Don't like the idea of two men getting married? Too bad, get over it.
This isn't about public. You can be a trans* person in public, unless you live in some backwater South Carolina town where you can't be anything other than white, straight, and Christian. This is about trans* persons escaping bullying. If allowing a non-cisgender person to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with reduces bullying any at all, then this law has accomplished what it set out to do. It's not trying to force labels onto children, it is in fact trying to do the opposite. And until you convince me opposition to this law isn't just people getting the heeby jeebies, I'm going to continue to believe this is the right thing to do.Yes, the nudity example is a good one, not b/c I'm saying this is letting them run around nude but b/c it is another rule we have about behavior that requires people to conform to a behavior with which they may not agree. We don't allow it b/c it is considered too offensive to too many people. We don't allow public nudity, public sex, etc. not b/c they are a danger to others but b/c we tried to find a balance between what people can do in public and what they can do in private.
that's the libertarian mantra: out of my bedroom and my wallet. It doesn't say out of my way b/c I can do whatever I want and you have to watch.
Whose values and beliefs are being bent? No ones. All this is doing is simply asking others to be tolerant, at the very least, of another person's self-identification and choices. This is trying to remove people facing scorn and ridicule from those situations as much as possible. If we lived in a society where more parents taught their kids to be accepting and to not bully, maybe this wouldn't be such an issue. As it is, parents force a set of values on kids that breeds intolerance, bigotry, and hatred, which imminently leads to others being bullied for being "different."yes you are right, while I have no doubt children are developing their orientation at an early age, as they are developing all of their personality, your examples point to just how difficult it is to really gauge what those orientations are and will be, and no I do not think a 6 year old has any more ability to understand and express those feelings than they have the ability to understand and express what career they will choose b/c they show interest in history or music. They may identify as more "male" or "female", i.e. a tom boy, but even to them they don't know if that means they will end up being hetero or lesbian or whatever else. SOME may know, many more will not.
Does that mean they should be able to develop and figure it out? Yes, absolutely. Does it mean the rest of society and other parents and children have to bend all of their values and beliefs and rules to allow it absolutely without bounds? No, absolutely not.
I do find it interesting that a self-professed libertarian is arguing the good of the whole over the good of the individual.
Like I said, no one is being asked to change their beliefs. But they are being asked to be tolerant or accepting of others' differences. I know this is a concept that generally escapes conservative Christians (that comment is not directed at you), but that is, once again, the point of this law. Tolerance at the least, acceptance if you please.There are limits to that exploration, a balance to be reached between those of different views. Thus while some think nudity is natural and healthy, we ban it in public. Some think cursing is just fine, yet we ban it across the public airwaves according to social concerns about children being exposed to it. There's no physical "harm" to be done, we simply compromise on our social mores to function.
I'm more sensitive to LGBT issues than most you'll meet, but I don't believe in tyranny of the majority OR the minority. The majority cannot force the minority to behave absolutely the way they think is right, but neither can the minority force the majority to change their behavior to absolutely accommodate the minority. Some of my LG friends agree, others don't, but as Mr. Garrison said this is about us all tolerating each other so we can function, not about embracing our likes and dislikes.
I deleted a large portion of the end of your post not because I didn't feel like it had merit, but because it made some of the same points over again. As for your final comments, I simply disagree wholeheartedly. The point is to tear down bigoted, narrow-minded, and just generally outdated societal norms, not become further beholden to them simply because change makes people uncomfortable.Here's what it comes down to: be it sexual orientation or anything else, few people go through this life without compromising "who they are" or "who they want to be" to simply survive. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, so don't sugarcoat it or leave them without the tools to deal with it when it happens, and it's likely to happen more than once in life. Conforming to the bathroom based on your chromosome set isn't even the beginning of what you'll have to learn to manage in life.
And your post is a good example of a red herring. Not to mention blatant ignorance.
That's a stupid way to be. There's nothing wrong with assigning cisgender to a child, chances are they'll gender-identify perfectly with their physiological sex. It's not like there's an epidemic of trans* kids. Parents aren't turning their boys into girls and vice versa and making little transgender toddler armies. MOST kids are cisgendered. MOST kids are (or will be) straight. But some boys feel like girls and some girls feel like boys and we should accommodate them accordingly.
I'm not even sure six-year-old "boys" in the girls bathroom is an actual issue. The law applies to elementary schools because some elementary schools are K-8 and some schools are K-12. I think we may have gotten off the point a bit with somewhat of a strawman in your initial reply. I don't expect a rash of this sort of thing in third grade bathrooms. Who this law is going to help more than anyone is pubescent boys and girls in grades 7-12. I think we saw "elementary" school and immediately assumed we'd have seven-year-olds in each other's bathrooms, but it's important to remember that this law is largely meant for the equivalent of middle and high school kids. That's the last I'll say about it. I wouldn't have replied at all, given the leading post linked to Fox News, but I had to speak my mind on this issue.
Will still have to be brief till tomorrow, but I guarantee I care about bullying and would love to see it ended. I also agree I'd rather parents and people generally abandon the human failings that create and even encourage bullying and such behavior, but that wont' happen any time soon.
I am curious, how does this stop bullying exactly? Moreover, how does the part about sports team participation stop it?
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Guys I live in the middle of this stuff as you know. You would be AMAZED at how INTOLERANT the left is out here. I see it daily. If they don't get their way they go ballistic. This is just another attempt at them pushing their agenda into the mainstream of America. They want this EVERYWHERE!
Well it's not going to stop it altogether. I wish there were laws we could pass that would effectively stop bullying, but that's a practical impossibility. But it will work toward preventing bullying, some now but definitely in the future. The principle is that same as that behind LGBT Pride and even anti-segregation laws in the 60s. One of the reasons kids are bullied is that there is and always has been an established "normal." So "abnormal" kids would be the subject of scorn and bullying (by the "normal" group). These kinds of laws establish a new "normal." (I keep putting "normal" in quotes because it's a concept I find to be generally bad. I don't like the concept of normality because everyone is different, but as long as we establish "normal" concepts, you'll get outliers that are bullied. Anyway...)
So now it's "OK" for the transman to play boys sports. The coach has to accept this because it is the law, if the current coach can't then a new coach will. The coach then makes sure some of the boys aren't bullying the trans* person. Easy as that. The way I see it, it's no different than if a gay kid wanted to play football. Should he be prevented from playing a sport because he might be attracted to some of the members of his own team? No, of course not. Same with a trans* person.
That's how I see it, anyway. Casting aside old ideas of normalcy is a key in preventing future bullying as best as possible. That's what these kinds of laws do. Might be rough at first, like desegregation in the 1960's, but it's a necessary step towards a more open and tolerant society.
Last edited by BigBlueBrock; 08-13-2013 at 07:56 AM.
I have an idea...........how about we just let the kids be kids, and let them figure it out on their own? Kinda like how it should be done............ya know?
All of this interfering and political correctness is a crock of crap. Let the kids make their own decisions and stop legislating how they live their lives, and once again, let them make their own decisions by the trial-and-error process that we call life.
Once again, we have big, bad government forcing the will of the few on the lives of the majority.
MOLON LABE!
Yep. Once again we have a prime example of the tail wagging the dog.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
Good luck to the Governor trying to legislate morality, or immorality depending on your point of view. It rarely works and becomes highly abused past the intentions of the law.
It's exactly what he is doing Brock. You can't legislate acceptance to something a large amount of the populous finds repugnant. Abortion laws are 40 years old now and still a chasm exists on that because you can't legislate someone's moral compass. It's a reach that a segment of the society needs to be afforded any special protection, and it can be construed (by the right anyway) that the state is crossing the separation of church and state boundry.
It's been mentioned in this thread already. Let kids be kids and let them figured it out. Correct the bullying issue when it can be caught, but you will never be rid off that possibility regardless of law passed. People of good heart and mind will act in the proper manner, those without such a good hearted nature will not. Maybe we can pass legislation that the geeky kids need protection too, after all bullying is far deeper than a LGBT issue.
You can't legislate tolerance and/or acceptance? Tell that to the civil right's leaders in the 1960's. It was considered "repugnant" for blacks and whites to marry at one point, but we told people they had to accept it, or at the very least tolerate it. It was considered "repugnant" for blacks and whites to intermingle in schools, sports teams, the military, but we told people they had to at least tolerate it. It was considered "repugnant" for openly gay men and women to serve in the military, but we told them they had to at least tolerate it. So now it's "repugnant" for someone that doesn't conform to traditional gender binaries to be on a sports team or use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, and now we tell people that you have to accept it or tolerate it.
This isn't about telling people what to believe. You can believe whatever you want, but you shouldn't be able to discriminate. This law is meant to prevent discrimination (which leads to bullying) based on gender identity and is no more or less valid than laws meant to prevent sexual or racial discrimination.
Alright, for real, last post in this thread. I've said my piece on this issue.
Last edited by BigBlueBrock; 08-13-2013 at 09:53 AM.
Yes, because a guy dressed as a girl in the girls bathroom isn't going to be bullied. That should fix it, letting him pee sitting down will fix all the problems... if there is a problem.
As a parent, I take my responsibilities to my kids as my job. I don't give a rats ass about other folks kids and them being "transgender" isn't my problem, nor is where thy pee. My job is to protect MY kids. I do not want a guy sharing a bathroom or locker room with my daughter, period. That does not make me intolerant of transgender, gays, etc..... In fact I could care less how you dress, who you marry, what you do to yourself or with other consenting adults. It makes 100% zero difference to me. This isn't about accepting gays or transgender. Its about my kids and their privacy and protection. That is my job.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Also, I love how gays try to equate the plight to that of the black man of the 60's. Yeah, its exactly the same
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks