LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[JimL]

Jim, you are evidence of the fact that public education in America is a dismal failure.

But I like you, so I will continue to assist you with your grammar and spelling.
We're focusing first on plurals and possessive, and, hopefully, we can progress to contractions.

Ok, you keep correcting my grammar, and I'll try to help you overcome your arrogance.

[Cow Poke]

Ok, you keep correcting my grammar, and I'll try to help you overcome your arrogance.

It's working, Jim! You're already typing less stupidly!!! I'm such a good teacher!

[Diogenes]

Again when a school district pushes that ideology the kids who disagree will become the piranhas. The school district and YOU are choosing sides.

It's "pariahs", .

Also, they won't just become pariahs, they'll get suspended as there have been at least two cases of freedom of speech violations (adjudicated as such or not) involving students who voiced dissent.

[carpedm9587]

There are no logistics issues with opting out of sex ed. We have been doing it for 50 years. You are just making stuff to support your flawed reasoning.

Do you find it useful to have discussions with someone you think is "making stuff up?" If I thought that about someone, I wouldn't bother with the conversation.

So you have no problem with opting out of sex education? OK, you seemed to have suggested otherwise.

No - I have never said otherwise. As happens so often with you and MM and a handful of others, I say "X," you conflate X with Y and then respond to Y. I see no avenue for avoiding that phenomenon. I have tried rephrasing multiple times. I have tried being clear that you have no correctly understood my position. Once you have locked into Y, it does not seem possible to dislodge you. So I repeat "X" over and over hoping you will eventually get it.

Again when a school district pushes that ideology the kids who disagree will become the piranhas. The school district and YOU are choosing sides.

If a school system pushes a "racial equality" agenda and some kids, raised by racially bigoted families, disagree and become pariahs, does that mean we need to eliminate the "racial equality" agenda? This argument does not scale - and is not a good one.

If some children "become pariahs," that is a separate issue to be dealt with. And perhaps some of those kids raised with prejudicial views will gain from the exposure. That would be my hope.

[carpedm9587]

If you are so familiar with critical theory, this is a rhetorical question.

I do - and it was not.

Since you don't know about efforts to get pornographic books into classrooms and libraries outside your own district, it's quite hard to take you seriously. You must not be aware of the contents of a book like Gender Queer or why anyone would object to it. There's also a push of what's called sexual citizenship which has gotten the Australian govt to fund an anthology of essays on the subject.

What is considered "pornography" will always vary widely from person to person. It's a continuum, not a binary classification. I am sure there are things we would both consider pornography and agree it should not be in schools. Then there are things we would both consider "not pornography" and agree that it could/should be in schools. Then there is that wide swath of things we will disagree on. You will see me as "promoting pornography" and I will see you as "banning perfectly good books." I don't see a way around this reality.

In short, the objection is to queer, drag, and trans pedagogies. It's an objection to making activists out of children as young as kindergartners. It's an objection to shows for preschoolers having child animals with double mastectomy scars. For kids, in 2019, a hospital could bring in $40k for the surgeon fees alone.

Child animals with double mastectomy scars? How is this even relevant?

I do not accept that children who develop an understanding for, and acceptance of, people from across the spectrum of the human experience are necessarily "activists." As with pornogrpahy, this too seems to be a matter of perspective. It seems that way to you because they are learning to accept what you clearly reject. They don't appear that way to me because they are learning to accept what I believe all people should be accepting: that people have a right to who and what they are without having to live in a hostile society because of it.

[seer]

No - I have never said otherwise. As happens so often with you and MM and a handful of others, I say "X," you conflate X with Y and then respond to Y. I see no avenue for avoiding that phenomenon. I have tried rephrasing multiple times. I have tried being clear that you have no correctly understood my position. Once you have locked into Y, it does not seem possible to dislodge you. So I repeat "X" over and over hoping you will eventually get it.

Carp, when I was speaking of opting out of sex ed that was when you brought up the nightmarish thing..

If a school system pushes a "racial equality" agenda and some kids, raised by racially bigoted families, disagree and become pariahs, does that mean we need to eliminate the "racial equality" agenda? This argument does not scale - and is not a good one.

If some children "become pariahs," that is a separate issue to be dealt with. And perhaps some of those kids raised with prejudicial views will gain from the exposure. That would be my hope.

There you go, you would force what you consider moral and acceptable on children. After all we don't want al those religious kids holding unacceptable views on certain sexual behaviors.

[carpedm9587]

XXY and XXXY are still male.

X0 and XX with the SRY gene are still female.

In the narrow world of "binary sex," I'm sure it seems that way to you. On the other hand, if you actually take the time to listen to actual hermaphrodites - those who actually have expressed sexual characteristics of both sexes (and denying these exist seems just pointless to me), you will find there is a different experience there. My position is, "who am I to tell someone else what they are or are not experiencing?"

There are no human (true) hermaphrodites. Interestingly though, the name comes from a Greek myth of male sexual assault victim. It's a rather disturbing story if you actually read it. The term is intersex.

Of course, all of this belies the point that trans people aren't actually "transgender" as the very purpose of HRT and SRS is to attempt to change sex.

The very point of HRT and SRS is to align the exterior sexual expression with the interior gender expression. That alignment can be done by aligning the internal with the external, or the external with the internal, if the person feels the need to make the alignment at all. Some do not.

The very purpose of trans, queer, and drag pedagogy has nothing to do with mere education regarding chromosomes, natal development, or genetic abnormalities.

What do you think it has to do with?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, when I was speaking of opting out of sex ed that was when you brought up the nightmarish thing..

I suggest you go back and read it again. I just did, and what I said stands. I believe I have been clear, from the outset, that opting out from macro courses is not a problem and has, as you say, a long history. My objection has been to opting out of micro-segments, and I even gave you an entire "scenario" to illustrate the issue. If someone else reads what I wrote and agrees with you that I was unclear, I'll revisit.

There you go, you would force what you consider moral and acceptable on children. After all we don't want al those religious kids holding unacceptable views on certain sexual behaviors.

Of COURSE I would expose children to what I consider to be moral and good behavior. What person would not want children to grow up with morals and behavior's they consider good? You are arguing for exactly the same thing - except what I see as moral you see as immoral and what you see as moral I see as immoral, so you are arguing to implement things in schools I consider immoral and unacceptable and I am arguing for things in schools that YOU consider immoral and unacceptable.

Why is this a surprise to you? It is almost inevitable. The macro issue is, "is it appropriate for schools to teach the moral rules of a society?" The answer is clearly "yes." We don't want kids hitting, biting, stealing, calling names, ridiculing, and all of the rest. These are moral norms and regularly dealt with in a school system. Once the answer is "yes," then there is the issue of "which norms do you teach?" Since there is currently a tension between conservative/christian norms and wider social norms, the result will be a struggle to include/exclude things each group wants (or does not want) in the schools. That is a perfectly normal, natural course of events.

[Diogenes]

In the narrow world of "binary sex," I'm sure it seems that way to you. On the other hand, if you actually take the time to listen to actual hermaphrodites - those who actually have expressed sexual characteristics of both sexes (and denying these exist seems just pointless to me), you will find there is a different experience there. My position is, "who am I to tell someone else what they are or are not experiencing?"

Trans individuals aren't the same as intersex individuals. At no point have I stated intersex individuals don't exist. They are however rare. I have no problem with high school juniors or seniors being taught that such abnormalities occur but that doesn't make them any less human.

The very point of HRT and SRS is to align the exterior sexual expression with the interior gender expression.

False as HRT and SRS can only align a disordered sense of sex. If it was merely gender expression, HRT and SRS would be irrelevant.

What do you think it has to do with?

It goes to the pedagogical activism of the GenderBread picture.

I do - and it was not.

This a contradiction.

What is considered "pornography" will always vary widely from person to person. It's a continuum, not a binary classification. I am sure there are things we would both consider pornography and agree it should not be in schools. Then there are things we would both consider "not pornography" and agree that it could/should be in schools. Then there is that wide swath of things we will disagree on. You will see me as "promoting pornography" and I will see you as "banning perfectly good books." I don't see a way around this reality.

As I pointed out earlier, school boards were prevent the very material in classrooms and libraries from being read because of the content. As you are not familiar with things outside of your district, you've already admitting to not knowing what is actually happening. In British Columbia two years ago, reportedly an assignment was sent home regarding

Four-year-olds at an Alert Bay, British Columbia school were reportedly given this homework assignment on touching their private body parts. The worksheet asks students to draw pictures of places in their home where they can masturbate privately."

Child animals with double mastectomy scars? How is this even relevant?

Why do preschoolers did to see a drag and trans pride parade that include animals meant to be representative of family having double mastectomy scars in tv shows?

I do not accept that children who develop an understanding for, and acceptance of, people from across the spectrum of the human experience are necessarily "activists."

The presentation was entitled "Small Activists, Big Impact: Cultivating Anti-Racists and Activists in Kindergarten".

As with pornogrpahy, this too seems to be a matter of perspective. It seems that way to you because they are learning to accept what you clearly reject. They don't appear that way to me because they are learning to accept what I believe all people should be accepting: that people have a right to who and what they are without having to live in a hostile society because of it.

Seeing as you don't what's going on outside your district, how things appear to you is of little value.

[seer]

Of COURSE I would expose children to what I consider to be moral and good behavior. What person would not want children to grow up with morals and behavior's they consider good? You are arguing for exactly the same thing - except what I see as moral you see as immoral and what you see as moral I see as immoral, so you are arguing to implement things in schools I consider immoral and unacceptable and I am arguing for things in schools that YOU consider immoral and unacceptable.

Why is this a surprise to you? It is almost inevitable. The macro issue is, "is it appropriate for schools to teach the moral rules of a society?" The answer is clearly "yes." We don't want kids hitting, biting, stealing, calling names, ridiculing, and all of the rest. These are moral norms and regularly dealt with in a school system. Once the answer is "yes," then there is the issue of "which norms do you teach?" Since there is currently a tension between conservative/christian norms and wider social norms, the result will be a struggle to include/exclude things each group wants (or does not want) in the schools. That is a perfectly normal, natural course of events.

Except you believe it is somehow illegitimate to use religious beliefs concerning morality to influence public schools.

[carpedm9587]

Trans individuals aren't the same as intersex individuals. At no point have I stated intersex individuals don't exist. They are however rare. I have no problem with high school juniors or seniors being taught that such abnormalities occur but that doesn't make them any less human.

Correct - and I did not say they were. Intersex/Hermaphrodite are interchangeable words - the former being seen as more acceptable to day.

False as HRT and SRS can only align a disordered sense of sex. If it was merely gender expression, HRT and SRS would be irrelevant.

You are again arguing against something I did not say. I repeat, HRT and SRS are used (in some cases) to deal with intersex situations, but also used to align the external sexual expression of a person with the interior gender identity. When gender identity and sexual expression are not aligned, you either align the interior with the exterior (counseling, psychotherapy, possibly drugs) or the exterior with the interior (HRT and SRS), assuming the individual wants the alignment.

It goes to the pedagogical activism of the GenderBread picture.

You call it "pedagogical activism" for reasons that are your own. I call it "teaching kids about the world."

This a contradiction.

It isn't, but I used "do" instead of "am" and created confusion. Your statement: If you care familiar with critical theory, this is rhetorical." My response should have been, "I am, and it's not."

As I pointed out earlier, school boards were prevent the very material in classrooms and libraries from being read because of the content. As you are not familiar with things outside of your district, you've already admitting to not knowing what is actually happening. In British Columbia two years ago, reportedly an assignment was sent home regarding

Four-year-olds at an Alert Bay, British Columbia school were reportedly given this homework assignment on touching their private body parts. The worksheet asks students to draw pictures of places in their home where they can masturbate privately."

Why do preschoolers did to see a drag and trans pride parade that include animals meant to be representative of family having double mastectomy scars in tv shows?

You appear to be making arguments out of isolated cases. If books are in schools that cannot be read at public meetings, either the meetings are being too narrowly constrained or the books don't belong in schools. If four year old kids are being given at home assignments about touching their bodies and masturbation, then the material needs to be re-evaluated and pulled. None of this has to do with moral issues schools should be concerned with. I have no ideas what the last item is about, but I have no problem with kids seeing "drag shows," any more than I have a problem with kids seeing "non-drag" shows. If the content of either type of show is sexually explicit beyond what is appropriate for the age, I will have a problem. Whether the clothes someone is wearing aligns with their external sexual expression is irrelevant to me.

The presentation was entitled "Small Activists, Big Impact: Cultivating Anti-Racists and Activists in Kindergarten".

I have no problem with children learning to not only be racially accepting, but also "anti-racists" in an age when even the leadership of one of our political parties cannot bring themselves to decry racism and call it out when it is manifest. When we live in a world where a major political candidate for a major political party cannot say "slavery was the cause of the civil war and was wrong," for fear of losing the support of a segment of the electorate, we need to step up our game on teaching kids about racism.

Seeing as you don't what's going on outside your district, how things appear to you is of little value.

As you wish, Dio. No one is requiring you to respond.

[carpedm9587]

Except you believe it is somehow illegitimate to use religious beliefs concerning morality to influence public schools.

I do, which is perfectly consistent. As I said, I consider some of your religiously-rooted morality to be immoral, so I will fight to keep it out of our schools. I will fight to keep ANYTHING I find immoral out of our schools, just as you are trying to do. ANd I will fight to keep anything I consider moral IN our schools, just as you are trying to do.

We have a constitution that prohibits the establishment of a religion by the government. I understand that to also mean not choosing one religion over another in any government-related or government-funded enterprise. When it comes to religions, the government should be as hands off as possible, not endorsing or supporting any one over any other. We also know that an educated citizenry is vital to the success of a democracy, which means the government has a duty to ensure that its citizens have access to that basic level of education. Therein lies the tension when people want to introduce religiously-linked concepts to public education.

There is no such prohibition against moral concepts in general. Indeed, as I have shown, schools have a need (perhaps even an obligation) to include basic social mores in their curriculum, and to deal with social/moral situations as they arise.

[seer]

Correct - and I did not say they were. Intersex/Hermaphrodite are interchangeable words - the former being seen as more acceptable to day.

So you agree that there is not a third sex like suggested in the Ginger bread meme?

[carpedm9587]

So you agree that there is not a third sex like suggested in the Ginger bread meme?

There are male, female, and intersex people. There are three symbols for the three kinds of people. I am not seeing your problem.

[seer]

I do, which is perfectly consistent. As I said, I consider some of your religiously-rooted morality to be immoral, so I will fight to keep it out of our schools. I will fight to keep ANYTHING I find immoral out of our schools, just as you are trying to do. ANd I will fight to keep anything I consider moral IN our schools, just as you are trying to do.

We have a constitution that prohibits the establishment of a religion by the government. I understand that to also mean not choosing one religion over another in any government-related or government-funded enterprise. When it comes to religions, the government should be as hands off as possible, not endorsing or supporting any one over any other. We also know that an educated citizenry is vital to the success of a democracy, which means the government has a duty to ensure that its citizens have access to that basic level of education. Therein lies the tension when people want to introduce religiously-linked concepts to public education.

There is no such prohibition against moral concepts in general. Indeed, as I have shown, schools have a need (perhaps even an obligation) to include basic social mores in their curriculum, and to deal with social/moral situations as they arise.

The fact is most of our laws, even present laws, were originally Biblically based. And you seem to assume that secular law is somehow more legitimate or acceptable.