NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm really beginning to hope political correctness is a fad.

As much as I'd like to comment on this article, I'd rather not get banned for flaming or advocating death or serious bodily harm (although that would be the extreme).

LINK (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130)

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" effectively have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms.

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

The bills signed by Schwarzenegger include SB777, which bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

"Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic – not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles. Now that SB777 is law, schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation," she said.

England told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias.

"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.

Schwarzenegger had vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided for penalties for discrimination.

"We had hoped that the governor would once again veto this outrageous legislation but he obviously decided to side with the out-of-touch extremists that control the legislature. This law does not reflect the true values of the average Californian," said England. "True leadership means standing up for what is true and right."

Thomasson said SB777 prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation."

"Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school," CCF noted.

Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

It also creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes, CCF said.

Thomasson said Schwarzenegger also signed AB14, which prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches.

Affected will be day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

Thomasson said it also forces every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals – to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct.

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

The vitriol over the issue rose to new levels in its latest campaign.

As WND reported, a board member for the homosexual advocacy group Equality California verbally attacked and threatened CRI for its opposition to the bill earlier.

The board member sent an e-mail and video to CRI threatening the group would be buried if it continued efforts opposing the homosexual advocacy.

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you." The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students.

WND has documented a number of earlier cases in which educators, including leaders in California, have taken it upon themselves to promote a homosexual lifestyle to children under their charge.

WND reported California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, under whose supervision hundreds of thousands of children are being educated, has used his state position and taxpayer-funded stationery to praise a "gay" pride event used in the past to expose children to sexually explicit activities.

That drew vehement objections from several educators, including Priscilla Schreiber, the president of the Grossmont Unified High School District governing board.

"I am outraged that a person in this high-ranking elected position would advocate an event where diversity is not just being celebrated but where pornography and indecent exposure is being perpetrated on the young and innocent children of our communities," she said.

Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center.

Epic line. Just, epic.

Whilst political correctness is complete bullshit (and by bullshit I mainly mean bullshit like UFO sightings) one does have to wonder why people find the thought so fascinating and important considering its objective triviality and then one has to put ones head in ones hand and weep for received wisdom, the people who receive it and the horrible reality it reveals about our society.

Has this been reported on CNN or AP? Because so far I'm only hearing it on the Right Wing Circuit.

Notice to Randy Thomasson: this is not the thirteen century.

Has this been reported on CNN or AP? Because so far I'm only hearing it on the Right Wing Circuit.

Not to my knowledge. I'm guessing the actual bill is something completely different.

W



T




F

Well, it's a step forward in the fact that students in CA are now allowed to associate with their gender identity rather than their physical gender if they so choose, but it's going to open up a whole can of harassment suits against boys that now use the girls locker rooms just to check out the girls. I just hope these get repealed before OTHER states get the idea to adopt laws like this. I shudder at the thought if my class were suddenly under the jurisdiction of these.

I think this is only an outline of the bill, but It's a good start. So far, no mention of removing "Mommy" or "Daddy" from textbooks and classrooms.

Linky! (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.pdf)

221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution
which that is controlled by a religious organization if the
application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of
that organization

So the Religion schools are safe from the 'ebil' SB 777. So far this bill seems to be ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, background, etc. are treated equality in the classroom.

As for removing Gender from the classroom. I'm sorry but *makes buzzer sound*

66260.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or
not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at
birth.

Thanks for playing.

What's so bad about stopping bigoted discrimination?

Well, it's a step forward in the fact that students in CA are now allowed to associate with their gender identity rather than their physical gender if they so choose, but it's going to open up a whole can of harassment suits against boys that now use the girls locker rooms just to check out the girls. I just hope these get repealed before OTHER states get the idea to adopt laws like this. I shudder at the thought if my class were suddenly under the jurisdiction of these.

That is exactly what I think, imagine all the late teen guys (Me being one of them) that would be like, "Look three cheerleaders going to the bathroom..."

I think you can take it from there...

You're still a child, so this is an opportunity more for instruction than ridicule, though you certainly deserve ridicule for posting this idiot spam on the forum, and to be ashamed for actually believing it to begin with.

World Net Daily reports things that aren't actually true, it's like the national enquirer.

For example, their claims in this article aren't actually true.

Hopefully before you become old enough to vote, you'll become smart enough to figure these things out on your own.

If not, the rest of us might actually have a good reason to fear for this country.

You're still a child, so this is an opportunity more for instruction than ridicule, though you certainly deserve ridicule for posting this idiot spam on the forum, and to be ashamed for actually believing it to begin with.

World Net Daily reports things that aren't actually true, it's like the national enquirer.

For example, their claims in this article aren't actually true.

Or he could just read the bill itself, I have it linked in my last post with a few comments.

this sounds like something right wing loonies would make up out of thin air.

last i checked, aaahhney, was a bit more right of center then left. although he does often at least attempt to make himself appear reasonably sane. and it is a measure of just how far the mighty have fallen that doing so would so vociferously offend anybody.

i'm not sure i'm ambitious enough to look this up myself, but i seriously question if there even IS an "sb777". and if there is, yah, i kind of seriously doubt it even relates to anything that rant was about.

could that possibly have been authored by someone like the kkk or carl rove or david broc? could what they are talking about mearly be a recognition of crimes specificly targeted against gays, being hate crimes, same as if they were targeted at any other group? this last is just a guess from context. and in all likelyhood, a mere recognition with little or no real teeth. just another guess.

=^^=
.../\...

erm so just because being gay lesbian bi is now allowed everyone is going to go gay on us??? lmfao

about the worst thing would be going to the loo and a girl walking in ... but lets face it only women that are bursting choose to go in the mens room :D


and i dont understand how this means they have to get new books??? *edit .. sotted the explanation for the books .... it would have been a problem had it been included from the start .... but that down to the homophobes etc who are worried they will be turned lol

also what difference does parents not going in mean?? mine are still married and only came to my school when they had to go to parent evening


and a general lmao at all the other highlighted stuff .. theres to much in there to laugh at


Oh noes you can be gay if you want to ... im going to go gay inthat case right now
(tradition rights guess means only single parents can go into the school lolol)


Lol at OP stressing


bahahahaha

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

does that bit mean if you change your name now they dont use it in USA schools ... and your worried about this bill ... that bit you highlighted should atleast be passed ... id be gutted if i changed my name and they didnt use it

I think this is only an outline of the bill, but It's a good start. So far, no mention of removing "Mommy" or "Daddy" from textbooks and classrooms.

Linky! (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.pdf)

So the Religion schools are safe from the 'ebil' SB 777. So far this bill seems to be ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, background, etc. are treated equality in the classroom.

As for removing Gender from the classroom. I'm sorry but *makes buzzer sound*

Thanks for playing.

Sel Appa lying or depending on lies about a story that touches on GLBT issues? I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed! Just watch me seethe with indignation at this his newly discovered and never previously shown homophobic bigotry. *seethes ever so furtively, but still somehow manages to keep "choosing" his "alternate" "lifestyle"*

Epic line. Just, epic.

If only it were feasible and true. *sighs* Heterosexuals have gotten to indoctrinate kids into their sexuality for so long, it's only fair we be given a shot to see if our techniques would be more successful and not as failed as theirs. Maybe that's what Sel Appa is so afraid of? That the inherent superiority of homosexuality would prove to be as true as I know it to be and would wipe out this heterosexuality he fears is so weak in people? I'm willing to give it a shot.

ok, now i think i get it. so all this is bacause schools aren't supposed to practice gender bias in the class room?

that we would need a law to stop them from doing so, indicates to me at least, just how far right wing loonacy has gotten out of hand. as if i needed a remindinder of its malfeasance to begin with.

=^^=
.../\...

as if i needed a remindinder of its malfeasance to begin with.

One of the things I like about social liberals: where people like George W. Bush use words like "evildoing" and "evildoer", we use words like "malfeasance" and "malefactor". Nothing says "liberal" like a Latin/French-inspired vocabulary. :D

One of the things I like about social liberals: where people like George W. Bush use words like "evildoing" and "evildoer", we use words like "malfeasance" and "malefactor". Nothing says "liberal" like a Latin/French-inspired vocabulary. :D

lolzerz! - granted.

=^^=
.../\...

lol no one should want to be anti gay .....

women on women ... say no more
men on men .... well if you have an arguement instead of buying flowers and chocolate and renting her a nice chick flick you go out get a take away some action film and chill ... both are happy and not bored (and as a bonus it makes less competiton with women out there for straight men)

the real evilness in the world are bi men ..... they are just greedy taking both and leaving no benifit for the straight male


(the above are jokes and sterotyping big time .. no offence meant .. though in theory i sort of agree with the above lol)

Justice has been served.

Too bad people like Sel Appa are keeping this from happening in all other states.

... but lets face it only women that are bursting choose to go in the mens room :Dhmm
maybe I need to go back to school.
I want to check it out, the swimming pool, the Girls Lockers.. Girls showers etc :D

so far I'm only hearing it on the Right Wing Circuit...Has this been reported on CNN or AP?No.
But its probably true. (minus the usual editorialism)
Shwatzenegger has probably signed this bill..

Is there anything like this in Europe?

Everything you need to know about this "news" source can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily)

No.
But its probably true. (minus the usual editorialism)
Shwatzenegger has probably signed this bill..

Is there anything like this in Europe?

As has been demonstrated, it's not even close to the truth.

No.
But its probably true. (minus the usual editorialism)
Shwatzenegger has probably signed this bill..

Is there anything like this in Europe?

pass ive not been to school in years but ive not heard anything like this in Uk .... but like films and music we will probably get similiar not long after the US gets it:D

Typical. Tolerance is a crime, bigotry is acceptable, and anything different is obviously wrong.


I'd care more if I wasn't so embittered, but I suppose I should be use to it. The only thing that pisses me off more than the blatant sensationalism are the people who agree with this steaming pile of crap.

I rember when school waabout scrumping, fights more fights and trying to have a crafty fag or two

Ok, being a bi/gay individual myself, I have to say, that bill just totally blows things way out of proportion.

Firstly, there's no reason to disallow thee words husband and wife.
Secondly, as with this whole using the locker room or bathroom of those you identify with should have some sort of permission needed, like a written contract, rather than just using an honour system that's so obvious to abuse it's not even funny.
Thirdly LGBT historical figures should be taught in history, however they should'nt be given a huge amount of space more than is required, simply because of there sexuality.


There's just way to much more for me to comment on.

No.
But its probably true. (minus the usual editorialism)
Shwatzenegger has probably signed this bill..

Is there anything like this in Europe?

*pss* I have the actual bill linked in the first page of this thread. You might want to read it.

Family values is the biggest "homophobe smokescreen" I've ever heard.

As for this bill, I support it except for the co-ed bathroom thing. i could see how that would cause a lot of trouble.

I don't particularly care, except for the bathroom part, because my relationship (and attraction ;)) is strong enough to resist any perceived threat of homosexuality. The bathrooms part is not wise, especially considering the state of young males minds at the time.

I got 5 lines into it before rolling my eyes and quitting. First two lines - "Hmm, this sounds fucking stupid." Next 3 lines: "Man, these people opposed to it are fucking stupid."

Just in case there's anyone who hasn't figured this out (including Sel Appa): The linked article source is bullshit, everything they print is bullshit, and every thread argument predicated on something they printed is bullshit, too.

Know your enemy:

A few clicks, starting at the About US button, led me to this:

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/wndown.html

from the above link, the editor of WorldNetDaily explains who owns WND:

Between me and the non-profit that I founded, we own the majority of stock in our company. About 75 private investors make up the other 40 percent of ownership.

Then about that non-profit partial owner:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Journalism_Center

And its founder's friends and colleagues:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy

So, WorldNetDaily is a one-man operation attached to a private club of rich right-wing religious nutjobs trying to pretend to be secular because they think no one will notice all those banner ads about Jerusalem, while desperately hiding their identities so they can plausibly deny their own agenda when WND gets criticized.

The editor of WND bitches that it shouldn't matter who owns his "newspaper," but if we look at the names associated with the group that does own it, we see people who control a lot of money, a lot of political lobbies, a lot of international connections, and who often appear in political news. So, yeah, I think it does matter. And it matters that they are lying.

I propose that all further arguments based on WND articles be dismissed out of hand as right wing propaganda.

Seconded. Propaganda cannot be used as a basis for discussion.

What's so bad about stopping bigoted discrimination?

You can't stop discrimination by discriminating against people now can you?

One of the things I like about social liberals: where people like George W. Bush use words like "evildoing" and "evildoer", we use words like "malfeasance" and "malefactor". Nothing says "liberal" like a Latin/French-inspired vocabulary. :D

If I had room, I'd sig this.

What's so bad about stopping bigoted discrimination?

There is no bigotry nor discrimination.

You're still a child, so this is an opportunity more for instruction than ridicule, though you certainly deserve ridicule for posting this idiot spam on the forum, and to be ashamed for actually believing it to begin with.

World Net Daily reports things that aren't actually true, it's like the national enquirer.

For example, their claims in this article aren't actually true.

Hopefully before you become old enough to vote, you'll become smart enough to figure these things out on your own.

If not, the rest of us might actually have a good reason to fear for this country.

It is not like the Onion or National Enquirer.

Sel Appa lying or depending on lies about a story that touches on GLBT issues? I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed! Just watch me seethe with indignation at this his newly discovered and never previously shown homophobic bigotry. *seethes ever so furtively, but still somehow manages to keep "choosing" his "alternate" "lifestyle"*

I was waiting for your post. :)

If only it were feasible and true. *sighs* Heterosexuals have gotten to indoctrinate kids into their sexuality for so long, it's only fair we be given a shot to see if our techniques would be more successful and not as failed as theirs. Maybe that's what Sel Appa is so afraid of? That the inherent superiority of homosexuality would prove to be as true as I know it to be and would wipe out this heterosexuality he fears is so weak in people? I'm willing to give it a shot.

I hope this is satire.

Ok, being a bi/gay individual myself, I have to say, that bill just totally blows things way out of proportion.

Firstly, there's no reason to disallow thee words husband and wife.
Secondly, as with this whole using the locker room or bathroom of those you identify with should have some sort of permission needed, like a written contract, rather than just using an honour system that's so obvious to abuse it's not even funny.
Thirdly LGBT historical figures should be taught in history, however they should'nt be given a huge amount of space more than is required, simply because of there sexuality.


There's just way to much more for me to comment on.

Enough with the "history months". Just treat everyone the same in history, regardless of their skin color or gender or whatever. Only their actions and implications in history matters. Gay figures should not be given special time when heterosexual figures are not given special time.

There is no bigotry nor discrimination.

Demanding that heterosexuality is given precedence over homosexuality *is* discrimination.

Enough with the "history months". Just treat everyone the same in history, regardless of their skin color or gender or whatever. Only their actions and implications in history matters. Gay figures should not be given special time when heterosexual figures are not given special time.

They are not given special time. In fact, what they are doing is removing the heterosexual figures' special time.

It is not like the Onion or National Enquirer.

Correct: all Onion articles are effectively commentaries on real events, whereas World Nut Daily stories are not reliably based in reality. These are the people who claimed that Global Warming is linked to Noah's Flood and vegetarian food will turn you gay for fucks sake; they have a long and illustrious record of making shit up to fuel the bigotry of their readers.

Correct: all Onion articles are effectively commentaries on real events, whereas World Nut Daily stories are not reliably based in reality. These are the people who claimed that Global Warming is linked to Noah's Flood and vegetarian food will turn you gay for fucks sake; they have a long and illustrious record of making shit up to fuel the bigotry of their readers.

Indeedy. Its not like the Onion. Its like the National Enquirer with a small mustache just under its nose.

Indeedy. Its not like the Onion. Its like the National Enquirer with a small mustache just under its nose.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Demanding that heterosexuality is given precedence over homosexuality *is* discrimination.



They are not given special time. In fact, what they are doing is removing the heterosexual figures' special time.

Why shouldn't heterosexuality be taught when it is correct? How can anyone not want their children to learn what is correct? This is like teaching that a certain invisible man or force created the Universe.

Heterosexual figures don't get special time.

Why shouldn't heterosexuality be taught when it is correct?

In what way is heterosexuality 'correct' relative to homosexuality?

I was waiting for your post. :)

And thanks to Wilgrove, no one had to wait for your lies to be exposed. :)

I hope this is satire.

Nope. You have reason to fear because your ilk is going the way of the dodo. Or to places like Alabama or Iran. Same thing, really. :)

And thanks to Wilgrove, no one had to wait for your lies to be exposed. :)



Nope. You have reason to fear because your ilk is going the way of the dodo. Or to places like Alabama or Iran. Same thing, really. :)

With my correct way goes the human species.

Why shouldn't heterosexuality be taught when it is correct? How can anyone not want their children to learn what is correct? This is like teaching that a certain invisible man or force created the Universe.

Heterosexual figures don't get special time.

Only correct if you want to reproduce. There is no correct sexuality. Most people will naturally find heterosexuality as it is undoubtedly the majority of people that are heterosexual - that's why we need to be taught about homo- and bi-sexuality. And I'm glad I was taught about them, otherwise I may have headed the way of Fred Phelps et al.

With my correct way goes the human species.

In what way is heterosexuality 'correct' relative to homosexuality?

In what way is heterosexuality 'correct' relative to homosexuality?

Heterosexuality is correct: it fosters life.
Homosexuality is incorrect: it fosters nothing.

Heterosexuality is correct: it fosters life.
Homosexuality is incorrect: it fosters nothing.

What do you mean it fosters life?

Heterosexuality is correct: it fosters life.
Homosexuality is incorrect: it fosters nothing.


Since the Earth is choking on excess population, I'd say your reasoning is backward.

What do you mean it fosters life?

If a man and woman have sex, you generally get babies. If a man and a man have sex, you get nothing (well maybe AIDS).

If a man and a man have sex, you get nothing (well maybe AIDS).

Wow. Nice. Care for a little biology lesson, you know, that having homosexual sex doesn't actually give you AIDS? That you have to have sex with a HIV/AIDS carrier?

Actually, I might let the gay members of this community tear into you for that.

If a man and woman have sex, you generally get babies. If a man and a man have sex, you get nothing (well maybe AIDS).

So what you are saying is that heterosexual intercourse is the correct way to reproduce? I wasn't aware that anyone was disputing that fact.

In fact, I am most opposed to teaching children that gay or lesbian sex will conceive children, as that would lead to a great deal of confusion.

Do you lot really believe we GLBTs are incapable of having children?!

Holy shit... You know what? Screw other school concerns, what you guys need to focus on, is teaching basic biology.

Wow. Nice. Care for a little biology lesson, you know, that having homosexual sex doesn't actually give you AIDS? That you have to have sex with a HIV/AIDS carrier?

Actually, I might let the gay members of this community tear into you for that.

I was trying to lighten the mood with a poor-taste joke. :rolleyes:

I was trying to lighten the mood with a poor-taste joke. :rolleyes:

Oh. Right. My bad. Really bad sense of humour.

Of course, if a relationship not based on fostering life is incorrect, then relationships where one partner is infertile are incorrect and relationships where contraception is used are incorrect as neither fosters life. I hereby propose that schools no longer promote a relationship with the infertile or the use of contraceptives, as that would be incorrect.

Oh. Right. My bad. Really bad sense of humour.

Nah it was my bad joke.

Of course, if a relationship not based on fostering life is incorrect, then relationships where one partner is infertile are incorrect and relationships where contraception is used are incorrect as neither fosters life. I hereby propose that schools no longer promote a relationship with the infertile or the use of contraceptives, as that would be incorrect.

Infertile couples should adopt and not use IVF.

I'm leaving this thread because it is obvious I am talking to brick walls.

I'm really beginning to hope political correctness is a fad.

As much as I'd like to comment on this article, I'd rather not get banned for flaming or advocating death or serious bodily harm (although that would be the extreme).

LINK (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130)

Why is it that throughout history California has always made the bad laws and the rest of the US goes along with it? :headbang::confused::(

If a man and woman have sex, you generally get babies. If a man and a man have sex, you get nothing (well maybe AIDS).

That's right, no one ever gets AIDS from hetero sex . . .

















Damn. Are you that much of a bigot or that much of an idiot?

I was trying to lighten the mood with a poor-taste joke. :rolleyes:


More like bigoted flaming than a joke.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Time_for_Nintendo/index.php?showtopic=436&st=0

Liberals are destroying America and it's values.

Firstly they are legally trying to make it so that the parent's barely have any influence over their kids, the calif gov to be the only influence in their lives it seems.

Liberal-fascism is written all over this. They want to brainwash our children.

Infertile couples should adopt and not use IVF.

Homosexual couples could also adopt. An infertile couple fosters life no more than a homosexual couple.

I'm leaving this thread because it is obvious I am talking to brick walls.

Whereas you are open to alternate suggestions? Give me a break, you're hardly a paragon of compromise.

Why is it that throughout history California has always made the bad laws and the rest of the US goes along with it? :headbang::confused::(

*whispers* This "story" isn't from a reputable site, and is not true.

With my correct way goes the human species.

Please explain how "your way" equates objectively to "correct".

Why shouldn't heterosexuality be taught when it is correct? How can anyone not want their children to learn what is correct? This is like teaching that a certain invisible man or force created the Universe.

Heterosexuality is no more "correct" in relation to homosexuality than dark hair is in relation to blond hair. They're both inborn traits, subject to natural diversity. Heterosexuality and dark hair just happen to be dominant in the majority-- that doesn't make either "right." And no, the "we'd go extinct if everyone were gay" argument won't hold any water because that will never be the case; there will always be people making babies. So if the existence of gay people doesn't pose any credible "threat" to the continuation of the species, subjecting gay people to social disadvantage is unjust, and removing un-earned straight priviledge so as to recognise the equality of persons is just.

Heterosexual figures don't get special time.

For most of recorded history, heteros have exclusively monopolised the historical stage by not acknowledging the existence of homosexuality. History has regaled us with stories of conquering heteros' personal lives while ignoring or actively covering up similar details about those players in history who weren't hetero. Hording all the time is getting "special time."

*censored*

Oh NOEZ! Tis' a Militant Gay!!!

*passes legislation like diarrhea*

Heterosexuality is no more "correct" in relation to homosexuality than dark hair is in relation to blond hair. They're both inborn traits, subject to natural diversity. Heterosexuality and dark hair just happen to be dominant in the majority-- that doesn't make either "right." And no, the "we'd go extinct if everyone were gay" argument won't hold any water because that will never be the case; there will always be people making babies. So if the existence of gay people doesn't pose any credible "threat" to the continuation of the species, subjecting gay people to social disadvantage is unjust, and removing un-earned straight priviledge so as to recognise the equality of persons is just.



For most of recorded history, heteros have exclusively monopolised the historical stage by not acknowledging the existence of homosexuality. History has regaled us with stories of conquering heteros' personal lives while ignoring or actively covering up similar details about those players in history who weren't hetero. Hording all the time is getting "special time."

Well then you'd agree that putting anyone at the social disadvantage, including straights would be as unjust?

Well then you'd agree that putting anyone at the social disadvantage, including straights would be as unjust.

Yes. Good thing it isn't happening, because the entire OP is nothing but a pack of lies from one of the most untrustworthy "news" sources on the planet.

I'm leaving this thread because it is obvious I am talking to brick walls.

As people with certain, unfortunate developmental retardations are oft to do...

As people with certain, unfortunate developmental retardations are oft to do...

Talk to brick walls?

I'll have you know that brick walls make good neighbours.

If only it were feasible and true. *sighs* Heterosexuals have gotten to indoctrinate kids into their sexuality for so long, it's only fair we be given a shot to see if our techniques would be more successful and not as failed as theirs. Maybe that's what Sel Appa is so afraid of? That the inherent superiority of homosexuality would prove to be as true as I know it to be and would wipe out this heterosexuality he fears is so weak in people? I'm willing to give it a shot.

Wow, not only is that remark "homo-sexist", but completely baseless and irrational.

Talk to brick walls?

I'll have you know that brick walls make good neighbours.

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
I would attribute it but I'm busy.
Now that that is out of the way...people should be nicerer(sp?) to each other.

As for removing Gender from the classroom. I'm sorry but *makes buzzer sound*


At what ages does this apply to? Are children really capable of having a different "gender identity"? If an 8 year old boy started wearing a dress, believing he was truly female, shouldn't this kind of behaviour be discouraged? Or do you believe that gender identity is genetic and can be different from your physical gender?

With my correct way goes the human species.

No, with your way goes not humanity, but troglodytes.

Best reason yet for providing real competition to government schools. Give us vouchers, not more PC education.

Is it really so hard to read the thread to see that the OP has been exposed as a pack of lies?

I'm really beginning to hope political correctness is a fad.

As much as I'd like to comment on this article, I'd rather not get banned for flaming or advocating death or serious bodily harm (although that would be the extreme).

LINK (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130)

Best reason yet for providing real competition to government schools. Give us vouchers, not more PC education.

Wow, not only is that remark "homo-sexist", but completely baseless and irrational.

I see your reading comprehension and context detection are what I recall them to be.

Click Stand;13171812']"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
I would attribute it but I'm busy.
Now that that is out of the way...people should be nicerer(sp?) to each other.

Exactly. Not.
Us masons would be out of 50% of our work if Something there was that didn't love a wall.

Yea, people should be nicer to each other.
That would solve...at least 75% of the worlds issues.

I'm leaving this thread because it is obvious I am talking to brick walls.

You can run, but you can't hide, dodo. :D

I see your reading comprehension and context detection are what I recall them to be.

Were you being satirical? It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

You can run, but you can't hide, dodo. :D

The dodo is already extinct. It just doesn't know it yet.

At what ages does this apply to? Are children really capable of having a different "gender identity"? If an 8 year old boy started wearing a dress, believing he was truly female, shouldn't this kind of behaviour be discouraged? Or do you believe that gender identity is genetic and can be different from your physical gender?

Girls are allowed to wear pants, why shouldn't boys be allowed to wear dresses if they want to? :confused:

I believe that they can be different...

I'm physically female but I'm not really sure if I feel male or female at all... usually I only think of being female when something like periods or breasts remind me of it. I just feel like... me. I remember not wanting to wear skirts because they're "too girly". So I have no idea how to tell what my gender identity is, so I usually just assume it's female because I don't really feel "male". But I do feel like I shouldn't have breasts, though. They just feel like they don't belong... periods, too.

And thanks to Wilgrove, no one had to wait for your lies to be exposed. :)

Yay I'm loved! :D

Girls are allowed to wear pants, why shouldn't boys be allowed to wear dresses if they want to? :confused:


Well, its a terribly bad idea to dress a young boy in a dress. It would be so embarrassing it would be traumatic. But its not just dressing up in a dress, but the whole believing he is a woman thing.


I'm physically female but I'm not really sure if I feel male or female at all... usually I only think of being female when something like periods or breasts remind me of it. I just feel like... me. I remember not wanting to wear skirts because they're "too girly". So I have no idea how to tell what my gender identity is, so I usually just assume it's female because I don't really feel "male". But I do feel like I shouldn't have breasts, though. They just feel like they don't belong... periods, too.

But do you think this is a genetic thing?

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Time_for_Nintendo/index.php?showtopic=436&st=0

Liberals are destroying America and it's values.

Firstly they are legally trying to make it so that the parent's barely have any influence over their kids, the calif gov to be the only influence in their lives it seems.

Liberal-fascism is written all over this. They want to brainwash our children.

You....didn't bother reading the bill....the actual bill itself....did ya?

At what ages does this apply to? Are children really capable of having a different "gender identity"? If an 8 year old boy started wearing a dress, believing he was truly female, shouldn't this kind of behaviour be discouraged?

Why? Who would be hurt by him wearing a dress?

Why? Who would be hurt by him wearing a dress?

Himself. But its not JUST the dress thing.

Well, its a terribly bad idea to dress a young boy in a dress. It would be so embarrassing it would be traumatic. But its not just dressing up in a dress, but the whole believing he is a woman thing.


Why is it bad for boys to wear "girl clothes" and not for girls to wear "boy clothes"?


But do you think this is a genetic thing?

I don't know.

does everyone realize here that this can't go into effect? I checked.....

Why is it bad for boys to wear "girl clothes" and not for girls to wear "boy clothes"?


There is no rational reason, that's just the way society is.

At what ages does this apply to? Are children really capable of having a different "gender identity"? If an 8 year old boy started wearing a dress, believing he was truly female, shouldn't this kind of behaviour be discouraged? Or do you believe that gender identity is genetic and can be different from your physical gender?

Ok, first off, freaky timing because in my Abby normal class (anyone who knows where I got that from gets a slice of cheese cake.) we actually talked about kids who truly think they are the opposite sex, even as young as 3 years old.

Now I'm not talking about Tom Boys or feminine men, I'm seriously talking about boys and girls who genuinely (after psychological analysis) believe that they are the opposite sex. What's amazing about this is that once they start to show signs of wanting to be the opposite sex, they don't go back.

So if there was a child, who genuinely thought that he was the opposite sex or supposed to be one, then I don't think it should be discouraged. Because all you're going to get is someone who's going to be more likely to be messed up later on in life.

However, for me personally, I would wait until the child is fully aware of the ramification of hormones treatment (testosterone shots or estrogen shots) before starting the treatments to change from one sex to the other.

Ok, first off, freaky timing because in my Abby normal class (anyone who knows where I got that from gets a slice of cheese cake.) we actually talked about kids who truly think they are the opposite sex, even as young as 3 years old.

Now I'm not talking about Tom Boys or feminine men, I'm seriously talking about boys and girls who genuinely (after psychological analysis) believe that they are the opposite sex. What's amazing about this is that once they start to show signs of wanting to be the opposite sex, they don't go back.

So if there was a child, who genuinely thought that he was the opposite sex or supposed to be one, then I don't think it should be discouraged. Because all you're going to get is someone who's going to be more likely to be messed up later on in life.

However, for me personally, I would wait until the child is fully aware of the ramification of hormones treatment (testosterone shots or estrogen shots) before starting the treatments to change from one sex to the other.

Got any sourcage? Was it a genetic thing?

I'm really beginning to hope political correctness is a fad.

As much as I'd like to comment on this article, I'd rather not get banned for flaming or advocating death or serious bodily harm (although that would be the extreme).

LINK (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130)
Be afraid. It works for the economy.
Never can have enough duct tape ... especially for the topic line.

Himself. But its not JUST the dress thing.

How? And what else is there besides the "dress thing"?

How?

You would be mocked and ridiculed, most of the children (if not all) would think you are strange and abnormal.


And what else is there besides the "dress thing"?

Believing you are female, acting like a female.

Ok, first off, freaky timing because in my Abby normal class (anyone who knows where I got that from gets a slice of cheese cake.)

Are people realy that unfamiliar with Young Frankenstein these days?

Got any sourcage? Was it a genetic thing?

Try googling Transgendered Children.

A good place to start would be with the American Psychological Association.

Are people realy that unfamiliar with Young Frankenstein these days?

*gives Cheese cake*

First Amendment Violations!

Freedom of Speach

You would be mocked and ridiculed, most of the children (if not all) would think you are strange and abnormal.

So fix the people who are broken not the boy in the dress.



Believing you are female, acting like a female.

Is harmful how? Because people are bigots? By that logic we should try to "fix" the skin of those who aren't Caucasian and we need to make sure everyone follows the exact same branch of the Christian church.

So fix the people who are broken not the boy in the dress.


I admire your optimism.

I admire your optimism.

I despise your defeatism.

There is no rational reason, that's just the way society is.

That doesn't make any sense at all...

You would be mocked and ridiculed, most of the children (if not all) would think you are strange and abnormal.



Believing you are female, acting like a female.

Most people get mocked and ridiculed for something, it seems... I was in middle school, for various reasons (too smart, too pale, too weak, etc.) It doesn't sound like that should be blamed on the kids who are getting picked on...


Why is acting like a female such a bad thing?

Are people realy that unfamiliar with Young Frankenstein these days?

I love that movie! :)

Girls are allowed to wear pants, why shouldn't boys be allowed to wear dresses if they want to? :confused:


They can... I believe the Scots call them 'kilts'.

*hides*

I admire your optimism.

I notice you neglected the rest of my post. Do you suport "fixing" the skin of non-whites so they don't get made fun of? What about "fixing" someone religion when they're in the minority, unlike skin color religion is choice . . .

simply put, homosexuality is vile, and anything that defends it is worse. political correctness is simply an attempt to dumb down the population to beleiving everything is right save that which may be offensive. ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENSIVE! :headbang:

Why is acting like a female such a bad thing?

Don't you understand, silly girl? Being a woman is degrading to these people.

That doesn't make any sense at all...


I know it doesn't, thats the point.


Most people get mocked and ridiculed for something, it seems...

Really?


I was in middle school, for various reasons (too smart, too pale, too weak, etc.) It doesn't sound like that should be blamed on the kids who are getting picked on...


I'm not blaming the kids. Do you mind if parents try and get their kids out in the sun more to make them less pale? Do you mind if parents try and get their kids some more exercise to stop them from being too weak?

Well, its a terribly bad idea to dress a young boy in a dress. It would be so embarrassing it would be traumatic. But its not just dressing up in a dress, but the whole believing he is a woman thing.

What's to particularly horrifying about that?

Ok, to the poster who wanted sources on Transgender Children, this falls under GID or Gender Identity Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) and here's what Wiki says about Transgeder Children, or Youth as they say. Click me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_youth)

They have links at the bottom that takes you to other website on the subject.

I notice you neglected the rest of my post. Do you suport "fixing" the skin of non-whites so they don't get made fun of? What about "fixing" someone religion when they're in the minority, unlike skin color religion is choice . . .

Do you honestly think that being a black child or being in a religious minority is as abnormal and counter-culture as being a child that wears a dress and thinks he's female? In my mind, believing you are something that you aren't is a psychological problem, skin colour however is not. Religion.. well I'll bite my tongue on that one.

Why shouldn't heterosexuality be taught when it is correct?

I was considering taking this thread seriously, but I just stopped right here. It would damage my sanity far too much to take this nonsense seriously.

Don't you understand, silly girl? Being a woman is degrading to these people.

:(

I used to think like that. It really hurt because I felt horrible whenever they made me wear a dress or a skirt because it felt so degrading.

I'm not blaming the kids. Do you mind if parents try and get their kids out in the sun more to make them less pale? Do you mind if parents try and get their kids some more exercise to stop them from being too weak?

I'm saying it should be blamed on the kids who are doing the teasing...

Being pale isn't a bad thing... it's just unusual because I'm in Florida and most people here aren't pale. I shouldn't have to adjust who I am just because people are picking on me for it.

Also, I had physical therapy and occupational therapy for several years... it helped me but it still didn't stop people from picking on me for being weak...

Really?

For one thing or another, to different degrees, I guess...

I'm saying it should be blamed on the kids who are doing the teasing...


Of course, this doesn't mean that parents shouldn't try to get their kids to be healthy right?

Do you honestly think that being a black child or being in a religious minority is as abnormal and counter-culture as being a child that wears a dress and thinks he's female? In my mind, believing you are something that you aren't is a psychological problem, skin colour however is not. Religion.. well I'll bite my tongue on that one.

You need to check you DSMV again. Being a transvestite or transexual isn't a psycological problem. Being a bigot might count though, I'm not sure.

:(

I used to think like that. It really hurt because I felt horrible whenever they made me wear a dress or a skirt because it felt so degrading.

It's a wretched culture they were brought up in and that they want to perpetuate because "it just is", because an unashamed and unstigmatised femininity threatens them - it's a deeply ingrained misogyny. "Know your place, woman and all like you! Beneath me."

Of course, this doesn't mean that parents shouldn't try to get their kids to be healthy right?

But I'm saying why should it be unhealthy for a boy to want to wear a dress, when it's fine for a girl to want to wear pants?

You need to check you DSMV again. Being a transvestite or transexual isn't a psycological problem.

Says who? It's either that or a genetic problem, being born with the wrong organs.


Being a bigot might count though, I'm not sure.

I don't support any oppression on transgendered adults, they can do whatever the fuck they want in my opinion.

You need to check you DSMV again. Being a transvestite or transexual isn't a psycological problem. Being a bigot might count though, I'm not sure.

If, for example, someone is born with male reproductive organs, features, hormones, and whatever else... then how is thinking is the person thinking he is a woman not a disorder? Biologically, genetically, physically, the person is male.

But I'm saying why should it be unhealthy for a boy to want to wear a dress, when it's fine for a girl to want to wear pants?

I didn't say wearing a dress is unhealthy, just that it'll lead to problems. I'm saying believing that you are of opposite gender, whether male or female, maybe a problem.

But I'm saying why should it be unhealthy for a boy to want to wear a dress, when it's fine for a girl to want to wear pants?

Because to them being like a woman is something awful, despicable, disgusting. That's the answer.

You need to check you DSMV again. Being a transvestite or transexual isn't a psycological problem. Being a bigot might count though, I'm not sure.

The law in the article seems to be indoctrinating children to think they are things they're not, thus they're making the children sick. If they were actually gay then no problem, but the problem is there are straight kids in those schools who are going to be pressured to become gay.

It's a wretched culture they were brought up in and that they want to perpetuate because "it just is", because an unashamed and unstigmatised femininity threatens them - it's a deeply ingrained misogyny. "Know your place, woman and all like you! Beneath me."

:( :mad: :( I don't know what else to say.


I didn't say wearing a dress is unhealthy, just that it'll lead to problems. I'm saying believing that you are of opposite gender, whether male or female, maybe a problem.

Why should it have to lead to problems?

Because to them being like a woman is something awful, despicable, disgusting. That's the answer.

You just love strawmen don't you.

The law in the article seems to be indoctrinating children to think they are things they're not, thus they're making the children sick. If they were actually gay then no problem, but the problem is there are straight kids in those schools who are going to be pressured to become gay.

You still haven't read the thread despite several people already pointing out to you that the OP is a pack of lies?

If, for example, someone is born with male reproductive organs, features, hormones, and whatever else... then how is thinking is the person thinking he is a woman not a disorder? Biologically, genetically, physically, the person is male.

But psychologically, emotionally and metally they're not. Oh my, whatever shall we do? Do we simply leave this person to get on with their life, free and equal like everyone else? Or do we force them to believe that the contents of one's pants fully define one's self?

Why should it have to lead to problems?

I didn't say it had to, i'm saying it does and you know that.

You just love strawmen don't you.

The truth is a not strawman. You have no problem with a girl wearing boy's clothing because being like a boy isn't something you view as bad. But a boy wearing girl's clothing - ah, that you view as something much more serious, because for a boy to be like a girl - well, your posting so far has exposed what you feel about that.

I was considering taking this thread seriously, but I just stopped right here. It would damage my sanity far too much to take this nonsense seriously.

Two things that are over rated, taking things seriously and sanity. I lost the second long ago and try to do the first as little as posible.

I didn't say it had to, i'm saying it does and you know that.

Because of the reason Fass said, right?

The law in the article seems to be indoctrinating children to think they are things they're not, thus they're making the children sick. If they were actually gay then no problem, but the problem is there are straight kids in those schools who are going to be pressured to become gay.

What's described in the article has almost no basis in reality. About the only thing they have right is that Arnie is still the governator.

But psychologically, emotionally and metally they're not. Oh my, whatever shall we do? Do we simply leave this person to get on with their life, free and equal like everyone else? Or do we force them to believe that the contents of one's pants fully define one's self?

I was just wondering whether or not it was a choice, or if there is some sort of gene that causes it.

The truth is a not strawman. You have no problem with a girl wearing boy's clothing because being like a boy isn't something you view as bad. But a boy wearing girl's clothing - ah, that you view as something much more serious, because for a boy to be like a girl - well, your posting so far has exposed what you feel about that.

I don't have any moral opposition to it. I just feel pragmatically it is a bad idea to go into school wearing a dress.

I was just wondering whether or not it was a choice, or if there is some sort of gene that causes it.

Who cares? We live in supposedly free societies with democratic values - choice or not has no bearing upon anything.

I was just wondering whether or not it was a choice, or if there is some sort of gene that causes it.

My guess would be a number of genes and one's environment. I doubt it's as simple as one gene.

I was just wondering whether or not it was a choice, or if there is some sort of gene that causes it.

You realise that genetics aren't the only things that shape psychological makeup?

And that, even if they were, it would most likely be several genes, not one, and would be incredibely difficult to track down?

Because of the reason Fass said, right?

Well, if fass was referring to school children, then in a way. Being extremely counter culture will always lead to ridicule.

I don't have any moral opposition to it. I just feel pragmatically it is a bad idea to go into school wearing a dress.

Why? Because you support others who share your unease at someone being like a girl? Or is it just that defeatism of yours?

If, for example, someone is born with male reproductive organs, features, hormones, and whatever else... then how is thinking is the person thinking he is a woman not a disorder? Biologically, genetically, physically, the person is male.

It does not cause a danger to themselves and others and it doesn't cause problems with their daily lives (at least no more problems than having brown skin or a different religion than is the majority in your local area). The same reason homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. Heading home and away from the net conection for now, I'll continue this argument another day.

You realise that genetics aren't the only things that shape psychological makeup?


Exactly! If it is nurture rather then nature, the "gender identity" of the child is dependent on how the parents raise the child, is it so bad to try to raise your child believing he/she is his/her physical gender?

Well, if fass was referring to school children, then in a way. Being extremely counter culture will always lead to ridicule.

So people should be forced to be like everyone else? To protect them from ridicule?

Or is it just that defeatism of yours?

I prefer the term realism.

So people should be forced to be like everyone else? To protect them from ridicule?

Encouraging children to not be very abnormal is different from "forcing them to be like everyone else".

Isn't the very purpose of this legislation that has been introduced to educate kids that being homosexual or transgendered is acceptable, and that they shouldn't make fun of poeple who are homosexual or transgender? I'm not saying that this will automatically stop people being ridiculed or bullied, but the classroom seems like a bloody good place to start educating people that intolerance is bad.

Exactly! If it is nurture rather then nature, the "gender identity" of the child is dependent on how the parents raise the child, is it so bad to try to raise your child believing he/she is his/her physical gender?

Except it's not one or the other, it's a combination of both. A very complicated combination. You might be able to raise someone to think that their physical sex defines their gender and come out with someone who can function in society, or you could come out with someone who's been taught all their lives that everything they think they know about themself is wrong and bad, which will manifest itself in fuck only knows what way.

Exactly! If it is nurture rather then nature, the "gender identity" of the child is dependent on how the parents raise the child, is it so bad to try to raise your child believing he/she is his/her physical gender?

Well, that's definitely not what I was expecting to read after "exactly", because it is not what I meant.

I prefer the term realism.

Use whatever term you want to try to obfuscate the fact that you give into bullying, but one thing you cannot obfuscate is that instilling in these children that they should be ashamed of who they are - which is exactly what you're proposing we do - does much more harm than any bully ever could.

You realise that genetics aren't the only things that shape psychological makeup?

And that, even if they were, it would most likely be several genes, not one, and would be incredibely difficult to track down?

Yes.

Alright. Just trying to get to the root of the issue.

Ah... 4 months and a name deletion for a vacaneymoon. I'm back.

I thought that Swarzenneggar was a Republican... apparently not.

Except it's not one or the other, it's a combination of both. A very complicated combination.

Although as far as I understand it, the specific genetic problem (the name escapes me) is extremely rare. I'll see if I can source that.

Who cares? We live in supposedly free societies with democratic values - choice or not has no bearing upon anything.

Its easier to be a bigot and blame someone for something if it is a choice rather than something biological and unchangeable. :p:(

Encouraging children to not be very abnormal is different from "forcing them to be like everyone else".

A rose by any other name

Although as far as I understand it, the specific genetic problem (the name escapes me) is extremely rare. I'll see if I can source that.

Genetic problem for what?

Anyone find the name of the bill oddly peculiar (SB777)?

Or the fact that a Republican, of all things, would sign it?

Unless this matter has been resolved pages before, which may just be the case...

Encouraging children to not be very abnormal is different from "forcing them to be like everyone else".

Some people seem to consider me "very abnormal", often because I'm part of a small minority orientation that some people seem to think doesn't exist or is just a disorder. My mom "encouraging" me to be "normal", by denying that I am what I say I am and often talking about my male friends and saying how she thinks we'd be a cute couple or something, talking about when I get married and when I have her grandkids... it only serves to make me resentful and makes me feel even more alienated and separated than I did before. I don't imagine that sort of approach could be successful for this either...I don't know for sure, but I imagine it would have a similar effect...

Use whatever term you want to try to obfuscate the fact that you give into bullying, but one thing you cannot obfuscate is that instilling in these children that they should be ashamed of who they are - which is exactly what you're proposing we do - does much more harm than any bully ever could.

I don't understand how knowing what will actually happen can equate to giving into bullying. And stop making up shit. I never said that they should be "ashamed" of anything, nor is what the gender they think they are necessarily "who they are".

Its easier to be a bigot and blame someone for something if it is a choice rather than something biological and unchangeable. :p:(

I am not in the interest of caring about the opinions of bigots no matter the excuses they use for their idiocy. The "choice or not"-debate is an irrelevant one (and one that only feeds into the hands of bigots, who like to pretend that it matters) because the rights of GLBT and also straight people do not depend on it. Whether or not people choose to be straight has no bearing on their rights.

Although as far as I understand it, the specific genetic problem (the name escapes me) is extremely rare. I'll see if I can source that.

I seriously doubt that being transgendered is considered a 'genetic problem' by any scientist, aside from the ignorant and/or bigotted fringe.

Genetic problem for what?

There is a genetic disorder that gives you male or female organs whilst remaining the opposite gender hormonally or something. Just give me a sec I'll find the link.

There is a genetic disorder that gives you male or female organs whilst remaining the opposite gender hormonally or something. Just give me a sec I'll find the link.

Are you sure you don't mean Swyer syndrome?

I seriously doubt that being transgendered is considered a 'genetic problem' by any scientist, aside from the ignorant and/or bigotted fringe.

Then why is it taught in a science class? It's a lot more specific then just being transgendered. I believe it also leaves you infertile.

I am not in the interest of caring about the opinions of bigots no matter the excuses they use for their idiocy. The "choice or not"-debate is an irrelevant one (and one that only feeds into the hands of bigots, who like to pretend that it matters) because the rights of GLBT and also straight people do not depend on it. Whether or not people choose to be straight has no bearing on their rights.

Since when was anyone debating anything to do with rights in this thread? Ever?

I don't understand how knowing what will actually happen can equate to giving into bullying.

Doing nothing to prevent it from happening and shaming the child instead of the bullies is giving into the bullies. The bullies were not born to hate women - they were taught it, probably by people like you who just resigned before "that's the way it is".

And stop making up shit. I never said that they should be "ashamed" of anything, nor is what the gender they think they are necessarily "who they are".

You didn't say it, but it is what you are propagating - that these children be cowed and repressed and shamed because you're much more concerned with not doing anything else.

Since when was anyone debating anything to do with rights in this thread? Ever?

No one is.

Doing nothing to prevent it from happening and shaming the child instead of the bullies is giving into the bullies. The bullies were not born to hate women - they were taught it, probably by people like you who just resigned before "that's the way it is".


When did I propse that?


You didn't say it, but it is what you are propagating - that these children be cowed and repressed and shamed because you're much more concerned with not doing anything else.

So basically, you are talking out of your ass.

Since when was anyone debating anything to do with rights in this thread?

Since the OP.

When did I propse that?

When you proposed that these children not be allowed to go to school in a dress.

So basically, you are talking out of your ass.

So, basically, I nailed your exact position and it's too ugly for you to face, so you like to pretend it's someone else's ass instead - mine probably because it's a damned fine ass and very easy to gaze upon.

Since the OP.

Well lets get one thing clear. I don't think that the rights of transgendered adults should be limited at all.

Well lets get one thing clear. I don't think that the rights of transgendered adults should be limited at all.

What about the children?

Well lets get one thing clear. I don't think that the rights of transgendered adults should be limited at all.

But children - they're subhuman.

When you proposed that these children not be allowed to go to school in a dress.


I didn't actually say shouldn't, I just said it was a bad idea and you know that. I can also think that going into school wearing a dress is a bad idea, whilst thinking that the kids are wrong to pick on the boy.


So, basically, I nailed your exact position and it's too ugly for you to face, so you like to pretend it's someone else's ass instead - mine probably because it's a damned fine ass and very easy to gaze upon.

You just admitted that I didn't say anything your strawman was saying, you just speculated (and being hideously incorrect) what I actually thought. Therefore, you were talking out of your arse.

So basically, you are talking out of your ass.

It seemed like you were saying that we should stop boys from going to school in dresses if they want to so that they avoid getting teased, instead of stopping the bullies from teasing them. It seemed like that to me at least.

But children - they're subhuman.

One step below fetii actually.

What about the children?

Children are bound to their parents until a certain age defined by the state. Do you think children shouldn't have to go to school? If not, then guess what, you also think children have different rights to adults.

It seemed like you were saying that we should stop boys from going to school in dresses if they want to so that they avoid getting teased, instead of stopping the bullies from teasing them. It seemed like that to me at least.

Why can't I support both?

I didn't actually say shouldn't, I just said it was a bad idea and you know that. I can also think that going into school wearing a dress is a bad idea, whilst thinking that the kids are wrong to pick on the boy.

And there you are - defeated.

You just admitted that I didn't say anything your strawman was saying, you were just speculating (and being hideously incorrect) what I actually thought. Therefore, you were talking out of your arse.

There's you going "I didn't say it was raining! I said that water was falling in droplets from the clouds and touching the earth! How dare you claim that what it amounts to is rain?!?"

Children are bound to their parents until a certain age defined by the state. Do you think children shouldn't have to go to school? If not, then guess what, you also think children have different rights to adults.

No, I do not think children should have to go to school.

Some people seem to consider me "very abnormal", often because I'm part of a small minority orientation that some people seem to think doesn't exist or is just a disorder. My mom "encouraging" me to be "normal", by denying that I am what I say I am and often talking about my male friends and saying how she thinks we'd be a cute couple or something, talking about when I get married and when I have her grandkids... it only serves to make me resentful and makes me feel even more alienated and separated than I did before. I don't imagine that sort of approach could be successful for this either...I don't know for sure, but I imagine it would have a similar effect...

You have added more to this discussion than Fass's closed-mindedness and his army of strawmen could ever hope to. You deserve a cookie.

One step below fetii actually.

The Latin plural of fetus is fetus (with the u pronounced longer than in the singular). Not "fetii". For the plural to be "fetii" the word would have to be "fetius".

No, I do not think children should have to go to school.

Ah, how inconvenient. :p Well, all i'm saying is that I do not feel that children are mature enough to really understand and decide rationally whether they want to have a sex change or not, so I think they should wait until adulthood before they have they operation (the age of adulthood being defined by the state). Is that such a sin?

You have added more to this discussion than Fass's closed-mindedness and his army of strawmen could ever hope to. You deserve a cookie.

I agree :)

Why can't I support both?

Because that's a BS position that changes nothing. It does nothing for these children other than push the out of your sight, which I am beginning to realise is exactly what you want. You like the status quo. You're resigned before it.

Anyone find the name of the bill oddly peculiar (SB777)?

Or the fact that a Republican, of all things, would sign it?

Unless this matter has been resolved pages before, which may just be the case...

It was resolved on the first page. The OP is nothing but lies.

The Latin plural of fetus is fetus (with the u pronounced longer than in the singular). Not "fetii". For the plural to be "fetii" the word would have to be "fetius".
Do you think I give a damn? :p
But thanks for the knowledge anyhow.

Ah, how inconvenient. :p Well, all i'm saying is that I do not feel that children are mature enough to really understand and decide rationally whether they want to have a sex change or not, so I think they should wait until adulthood before they have they operation (the age of adulthood being defined by the state). Is that such a sin?

I can agree with the decision of the operation being postponed until they are of an age at which they can rationally make such a decision. (no idea when that would be though).
However, I think you were against male children wearing kilts too.

However, I think you were against male children wearing kilts too.

Again, it wasn't an issue of rights, I don't think the state should force children to not wear a dress.

edit: but if the school is going to have a dress code, it should probably include boys not wearing a dress

Again, it wasn't an issue of rights, I don't think the state should force children to not wear a dress.

Who wears dresses these days anyway?
I can't even remember the last time I saw anyone wearing a dress.

Ah, how inconvenient. :p Well, all i'm saying is that I do not feel that children are mature enough to really understand and decide rationally whether they want to have a sex change or not,

Well, considering that prior to any transition the child in question would have to undergo rigorous psychological testing, probing, and profiling (moreso than the already fairly substantial testing of an adult), it's not as if it would or could happen on a child's whim.

so I think they should wait until adulthood before they have they operation (the age of adulthood being defined by the state). Is that such a sin?

That's exactly as the law stands; children have to wait until adulthood before having SRS. However, there's nothing to stop them dressing as a member of their preferred sex, acting as a member of their preferred sex, taking a name "belonging" to their preferred sex, or even, in early teens, having hormone blockers to stop "normal" development in their "natural" sex.

Who wears dresses these days anyway?
I can't even remember the last time I saw anyone wearing a dress.

People wear dresses all the time.

It was resolved on the first page. The OP is nothing but lies.

Ah, good.

Nothing but sweet, sweet, neo-Conservative, right wing...

Since I myself am a Republican, I think I should just stop here. :P

People wear dresses all the time.

Pfft... Source?

Oh wait, they didn't have the internet back in the 30's. :p

That's exactly as the law stands; children have to wait until adulthood before having SRS. However, there's nothing to stop them dressing as a member of their preferred sex, acting as a member of their preferred sex, taking a name "belonging" to their preferred sex, or even, in early teens, having hormone blockers to stop "normal" development in their "natural" sex.

Yep that's fine. There is also nothing to stop the parents trying to convince them otherwise.

I live in California and I haven't heard a damn thing about this.

Do you think I give a damn? :p

I presuppose that most people would mind coming across as uneducated when they are so trying to look as if they were educated by using a Latin form. This way in the future you'll know the correct form and save yourself the embarrassment of "farting above your behind", as the French say.

But thanks for the knowledge anyhow.

Welcome.

I presuppose that most people would mind coming across as uneducated when they are so trying to look as if they were educated by using a Latin form.

I never was one to come across as educated.
I just like the pizzazz that 'fetii' has to it.

Pfft... Source?

Oh wait, they didn't have the internet back in the 30's. :p

I'm wearing one right now :p

A lot of people I know wear them on occassion. Just not frumpy old-style ones.

I never was one to come across as educated.
I just like the pizzazz that 'fetii' has to it.

You mean "pizazz". And, as I said, "fetii" is just plain old uneducated and non-existent in either Latin or English. It's like pluralising "dog" "doges".

You mean "pizazz". And, as I said, "fetii" is just plain old uneducated and non-existent in either Latin or English. It's like pluralising "dog" "doges".

Do you ever lighten up, Fass, or is there just not enough gin and tonic in the world for you?

Liberals are destroying America and it's values.

Firstly they are legally trying to make it so that the parent's barely have any influence over their kids, the calif gov to be the only influence in their lives it seems.

Liberal-fascism is written all over this. They want to brainwash our children.

Hmmm, you mean the values that most Republican politicians preach, but that they actually don't do right? Like do what I say, not what I do? But it isn't really that they are doing those things, except for the adultury and pedifilsm(SP?). It is the fact that they are being hypocrites. If there was actually a bill like Sb77 or whatever then I would support it, except for some parts.

For another part of this, do you think it is okay for a parent to teach their child bigotry?

Do you ever lighten up, Fass, or is there just not enough gin and tonic in the world for you?

I don't drink gin and tonic. I prefer vermouth.

Why can't I support both?

They shouldn't be stopped from being themselves just because they'll get picked on for it. We should stop people from being bullies instead.

The Latin plural of fetus is fetus (with the u pronounced longer than in the singular). Not "fetii". For the plural to be "fetii" the word would have to be "fetius".

:eek: YAY! I knew that! :D

You mean "pizazz". And, as I said, "fetii" is just plain old uneducated and non-existent in either Latin or English. It's like pluralising "dog" "doges".

Dang, I knew it looked wrong.
The one thing I do care about is spelling.
Unless it deals with tasty fetii.

I don't drink gin and tonic. I prefer vermouth.

Therein lies the cusp of the goblet.

I'm wearing one right now :p

A lot of people I know wear them on occassion. Just not frumpy old-style ones.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Ah.. I have never been known to wear one.
Obviously the universe revolves around me.

I'm really beginning to hope political correctness is a fad.

As much as I'd like to comment on this article, I'd rather not get banned for flaming or advocating death or serious bodily harm (although that would be the extreme).

LINK (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130)

I am truly shocked at the degree of bigotry it takes to twist a simple civil rights bill into some sort of threat to our children.

I fear for this country too -- because how easily people like you are manipulated by hate.

I think this is only an outline of the bill, but It's a good start. So far, no mention of removing "Mommy" or "Daddy" from textbooks and classrooms.

Linky! (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.pdf)

So the Religion schools are safe from the 'ebil' SB 777. So far this bill seems to be ensuring that everyone, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, background, etc. are treated equality in the classroom.

As for removing Gender from the classroom. I'm sorry but *makes buzzer sound*

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for linking the actual bill and proving the OP is a pack of bigotted lies.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Ah.. I have never been known to wear one.
Obviously the universe revolves around me.

Obviously :p

Obviously :p

I suppose that its a bad thing...since it would imply that I am extremely dense.

I suppose that its a bad thing...since it would imply that I am extremely dense.

You said it, not me ;)

You said it, not me ;)

Trapped with my own gravity. :(

Trapped with my own gravity. :(

You're in good company, you know ... you're literally surrounded by like individuals!

Of course, i don't mean the physical form.

You're in good company, you know ... you're literally surrounded by like individuals!

Of course, i don't mean the physical form.

Metaphysics is worse than physics.

At least they give you equations in the latter...

Like F=ma or F Equals MA. FEMA.
Coincidence, or cleverly designed acronym?
You decide.

Well, its a terribly bad idea to dress a young boy in a dress. It would be so embarrassing it would be traumatic. But its not just dressing up in a dress, but the whole believing he is a woman thing.


Uh... nowhere in any of this has there been talk about "putting boys in dresses" against their will, it's about allowing kids to self-identify and decide for themselves (as opposed to trying to tell them what they are/what they should be), and about creating an environment where they can live out their decisions without institutional discrimination. It's not about saying "you can't show straight role-models," it's about saying "you can't show only straight role-models and leave out positive images that everyone else can relate to." The regressives are shrilling panic that "they're going to brainwash our helpless little children and turn them gay and make them cross-dress!" That's crap. Moreover, it's a smokescreen, because saying "they're going to knock us off our pedastal, which we did nothing special to earn and have only occupied for all this time by making life unbearable for anyone who was different" would sound as petty and bigoted as they really are.

Again: this isn't about "making" straight boys (evidently the main focus of the righties' anxiety, because more than anything they care about preparing their boys to perpetuate the status quo where straight, paternalistic, chauvenist men basically horde as much control as they can) gay, or making them wear dresses. It's about letting kids who are gay be as openly gay as straight kids are openly straight, and letting kids who feel like their body doesn't match their gender self-image live according to their own feelings instead of outside expectations, and letting kids who want to cross-dress (and who have the guts to do so, even knowing that their peers may very well ridicule them) do so, and teaching their peers at school not to be so closed minded that they freak out about how other people choose to clothe themselves. And frankly, if your hypothetical boy-in-a-dress chose for himself to wear it, it isn't your place to stop him from taking his chances. He has the freedom to make that choice, and the kind of legislation being discussed is about instructing young people to respect each other's choices (and to respect those traits that aren't a matter of choice, like orientation), even if their parents would prefer to try and indoctrinate them with their irrational prejudices.

Metaphysics is worse than physics.

At least they give you equations in the latter...I meant, more like there was a distinct gravity to your essence of post :rolleyes:


Like F=ma or F Equals MA. FEMA.
Coincidence, or cleverly designed acronym?
You decide.
Oh great, another enemy in my head! Ow! Ow!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif

I meant, more like there was a distinct gravity to your essence of post :rolleyes:


Oh great, another enemy in my head! Ow! Ow!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif

Now I am not sure what you mean at all.
:confused:http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif:confused:

The more the merrier, as the saying goes.

Now I am not sure what you mean at all.
:confused:http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1087.gif:confused:
You know, we're all orbiting on your every saying! :p

The more the merrier, as the saying goes.I meant the addition of a thought phantom for me to gnaw on, what with FEMA and coincidences. o.9

You know, we're all orbiting on your every saying! :p

Oh. Am I really that charismatic?

I meant the addition of a thought phantom for me to gnaw on, what with FEMA and coincidences. o.9
I understood that part at least. :p

Ooh. I gotta move to California and get me some indoctrination.
Indoctrination... indoctrination. Nice word.
World Net Daily seem to think so too, they use it a lot...
Or were they just trying to make a point?
Using a little indoctrination perhaps?

I don't support any oppression on transgendered adults, they can do whatever the fuck they want in my opinion.

Except, apparently, know that they're transgendered before a certain arbitrary age that will be determined by... you? If you accept that transgendered people exist, and you wouldn't presume to tell them they can't express the gender identity they feel is right for them as adults, then the only excuse for limiting that same freedom when they're children is basically "well we all KNOW that kids are mean and will tease each other, therefore we should make them all conform, so that the ones who are different don't suffer ridicule from their peers."

Besides being an abdication of responsibility for raising children to be just and egalitarian and fair, it assumes that being hateful little bigots is the 'natural state' of children instead of the result of social conditioning whereby grown-ups who irrationally discriminate want to teach their kids to irrationally discriminate.

One of the things I like about social liberals: where people like George W. Bush use words like "evildoing" and "evildoer", we use words like "malfeasance" and "malefactor". Nothing says "liberal" like a Latin/French-inspired vocabulary. :D

sigged.

Oh. Am I really that charismatic?
I suppose ... it's common where humility is professed.
<.<
>.>


I understood that part at least. :pThen you haven't drank enough!

I wish PC was just a fad, then it would go away eventually but it's a viral infection that destroys all societies it comes in contact with and it does it brutally.

I wish PC was just a fad, then it would go away eventually but it's a viral infection that destroys all societies it comes in contact with and it does it brutally.

Wow.. this is indeed dire.
I would say something, but it wouldn't be PC.

I suppose ... it's common where humility is professed.
<.<
>.>

Heh.. once professed I don't think it is humble anymore.
Can't very well go around saying how humble ya are without being the exact opposite. I suppose.

Then you haven't drank enough!
*downs three shots of water*
*passes out*

I wish PC was just a fad, then it would go away eventually but it's a viral infection that destroys all societies it comes in contact with and it does it brutally.

I know. It was political correctness that brought the Roman empire crashing down. DAMN YOU POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! DAMN YOU TO HELL!