NationStates Jolt Archive

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

Hmm? I don't have an agenda. I did play with porcelain dolls when I was younger and my mother didn't heckle me about it.

Well, no agenda outside of shrinking governments around the world :D

Hmm? I don't have an agenda. I did play with porcelain dolls when I was younger and my mother didn't heckle me about it.

Well, no agenda outside of shrinking governments around the world :D

I like your agenda.

I have a bisexual agenda. I take advantage of all of the hard work the gay community has done in getting acceptance from the larger community and use it to make myself look cool and open minded and get me some man meat. Then I can go to my families homes with my wife and pretend to be strictly straight so that I am accepted everywhere.

I have an anti-food agenda. Food is fuel people, it's not to be the entire basis for your social and emotional life!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *dies*

I have an agenda that is based on "choice". Tied to that agenda is "toleranc to the choice". ^_^ now, what would that agenda be called? :D also, i admit, these agendas are based on me since i am bi (or gay... i don't really know lol all i know that the same-sex holds a possibility for me)

I have a bisexual agenda. I take advantage of all of the hard work the gay community has done in getting acceptance from the larger community and use it to make myself look cool and open minded and get me some man meat. Then I can go to my families homes with my wife and pretend to be strictly straight so that I am accepted everywhere.


*giggles*

Glad you said it so Fass doesn't have to :D

I have an anti-food agenda. Food is fuel people, it's not to be the entire basis for your social and emotional life!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *dies*

"Dang. How many times is that?"
"Third time Smunkee has died this week."
"Shouldn't we call an ambulance?"
"Nah, she'll be revived in a few minutes."
-From Adventures of a generalite by Conserative morality
:p

*giggles*

Glad you said it so Fass doesn't have to :D

:D

:cool:

I have an agenda too.

I teach my kids to trust their instincts over propaganda. I teach them that if something they hear on the news or in their public education indoctrination doesn't make sense to them, then it's probably because it doesn't make sense at all.

I teach them to pursue the truth, however uncomfortable that might become. I teach them that it's perfectly acceptable to question our religion as long as they're willing to do it objectively and with an open mind.

I teach them that generally when someone calls them an ugly, small-minded fool it's a way to disguise that person's own ugliness, small-mindedness, and foolishness. Name-calling is for children and they're better than that.

I teach my kids to acknowledge that not everybody believes in the same things that they do, and that's the way it should be. I teach them that they mustn't force their ideas and beliefs on others, but that they also shouldn't allow themselves to worry about others attempting to belittle them for their own beliefs.

My agenda is to produce children who are strong enough to find the truth and hold fast to it, and to understand that the truth isn't always warm and fuzzy, but that it's still preferable over ignorance and self-deception.

The gay agenda was written on February 2, 1983 by anonymous. This historical document, with its stirring prose, is excerpted below:

Gather receipts to complete tax returns.
Pick up laundry from the dry cleaners.
Call Mom.
Get oil checked.
Water lawn.
Pick up milk, eggs, and a pint of vanilla ice cream at the store.
Take cat to the vet.
Pay electric bill.
Get stamps at the post office.
Cheat on spouce.
Vandalize mall property.
Get run over by neighbor's car.
(illegible)
Profit!
Spend all of the money on cough/cold medicine.
Thinking About "Seeing" Toby Keith

"Dang. How many times is that?"
"Third time Smunkee has died this week."
"Shouldn't we call an ambulance?"
"Nah, she'll be revived in a few minutes."
-From Adventures of a generalite by Conserative morality
:p

I died at least 3 times on another forum already this week to. It's a horrible affliction really.

I teach them that generally when someone calls them an ugly, small-minded fool it's a way to disguise that person's own ugliness, small-mindedness, and foolishness. Name-calling is for children and they're better than that.

If you raise your children to be homophobes and rigidly crammed into gender stereotypes, no amount of 'name-calling is for children' changes the fact that doing so makes you a bad person. Sorry.

I approve of the gay agenda. I have no children, otherwise I'd be doing what Sineesika is doing.
But with less panache. *le sigh*

I have an anti-food agenda. Food is fuel people, it's not to be the entire basis for your social and emotional life!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *dies*:eek:
If not food, then what?

I approve of the gay agenda. I have no children, otherwise I'd be doing what Sineesika is doing.
But with less panache. *le sigh*

:eek:
If not food, then what?

Sex of course. Possibly small porcelian figurines of poodles with swords.

my only gay agenda is to get into the pants of the people i find sexy (whether they know they want me...or not)

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

My agenda, is to get my kids outa the house as fast as possible.

Although saying that, I was at my borthers house the other week and I saw tha he had one of our sisters kids staying there, little Alfie an 8 year old boy child.

Now me, I'm a kisser, I don't care who I kiss, If I love em I'll kiss em. So I saw Alfie, and said Alllfffie, and grabbed him for a kiss.

After he got away from me, and my brother had a good giggle. My brother told me the following:

'Alfie said to me earlyer, uncle kev you aint like uncle peep's, you always shake my hand while uncle peeps always kisses me' He told the child that is because I have a beard and beared men like kissing little boys, *fair do's* he is cute little fucker.:D

So what's your agenda?It's blue, and it lies, unused, on my floor near my heater.

I have an anti-food agenda. Food is fuel people, it's not to be the entire basis for your social and emotional life!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *dies*

i am a big fan of food. my family is a mix of all kinds of cultures, and food is the way that they are all united. my entire family cooks, and i feel the most important thing in the world is that every night, no matter how much work we have to do, my parents, 2 brothers, sister and i all sit down and share a delicious, healthy, home-cooked meal.

i feel that good food is essential for cultural expression and exploration, and also just for having a more enjoyable, healthier life. food is more than the industrial-grade fuel for people to stuff in their mouths to maintain themselves. i have a Food Agenda.

and i am lucky. there are some fantastic cooks in my family. but that is not necessary. anyone can do it. i encourage every one of you to think of one thing they like, anything from roast chicken to steak to eggs to homemade buttermilk pancakes, and learn how to make it. you can do it.

Also, no offense, but i HATE when people *put their actions in asterisks*. i have an anti-that agenda.

I just want people to be reasonable. And I'm willing to get there by any means necessary.

i am a big fan of food. my family is a mix of all kinds of cultures, and food is the way that they are all united. my entire family cooks, and i feel the most important thing in the world is that every night, no matter how much work we have to do, my parents, 2 brothers, sister and i all sit down and share a delicious, healthy, home-cooked meal.

i feel that good food is essential for cultural expression and exploration, and also just for having a more enjoyable, healthier life. food is more than the industrial-grade fuel for people to stuff in their mouths to maintain themselves. i have a Food Agenda.

and i am lucky. there are some fantastic cooks in my family. but that is not necessary. anyone can do it. i encourage every one of you to think of one thing they like, anything from roast chicken to steak to eggs to homemade buttermilk pancakes, and learn how to make it. you can do it.
When you can't eat 98% of the food, it becomes burdensome. You notice it more.

"wanna help me move?"
"want to? no. I will though"
"cool I'll buy you a pizza"

"hey! it's my birthday!"
"cool!"
"come over later we'll have pizza and cake and ice cream"

"wow, I'm sorry your dad died"
"thanks"
"here I brought you some food"

"yay! you finished your master's degree!"
"yay!"
"here's a gift card to a restaruant you can't eat at"

"gee! thanks for helping my kid pass 8th grade"
"you're welcome"
"here I baked you some cookies"

I have a whole collection of Agendas.

I keep them in a well maintained, comfortable habitat.

Some of them might be gay, it's never concerned me, other than when I'm trying to breed new Agendas. It's hard to tell. It's tough enough just trying to tell the sex of an Agenda. If the Agenda listens to Show Tunes and shows excessive concern over my choice of shirts, is that a sign?

So it usually doesn't worry me. Now, the Hidden Agendas, those are a pain. I think I have four or five.

My agenda? Achieve absolute 100% worldwide homogeneity. If that means promoting homosexuality, then go to.

Whatever it takes people.

i am a big fan of food. my family is a mix of all kinds of cultures, and food is the way that they are all united. my entire family cooks, and i feel the most important thing in the world is that every night, no matter how much work we have to do, my parents, 2 brothers, sister and i all sit down and share a delicious, healthy, home-cooked meal.

i feel that good food is essential for cultural expression and exploration, and also just for having a more enjoyable, healthier life. food is more than the industrial-grade fuel for people to stuff in their mouths to maintain themselves. i have a Food Agenda.

and i am lucky. there are some fantastic cooks in my family. but that is not necessary. anyone can do it. i encourage every one of you to think of one thing they like, anything from roast chicken to steak to eggs to homemade buttermilk pancakes, and learn how to make it. you can do it.

Also, no offense, but i HATE when people *put their actions in asterisks*. i have an anti-that agenda.
*Smacks Grondisbald across the head. Laughs*

i am a big fan of food.

I understand completely. I have been eating it all my life, and I recommend it highly to anyone.

In fact, this has always been a central interest in my family. I am a direct descendant of literally millions of ancestors who kept more to the "Eat" side of the "Eat or be Eaten" question. It's in our genes, you might say.

I can't imagine someone belittling an activity with that kind of heritage behind it.

My primary agenda is the removal of the arts from our schools. Who's gonna tell my kids what's good and what's not? Not the schools, that's for sure. I also hope to see an end to school music programs, athletic activities, and anything that is not based on a hard science.

And then turn my kids into cyborgs.

That'll be awesome.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.


You're really going to hate this:

http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/index/yerkes-app/story.90/title.yerkes-researchers-find-sex-differences-in-monkey-toy-preferences-similar-to-humans

In short, unless Rhesus monkey mommies and daddies have been going around behind our backs teaching their little monkeys that girls like plush toys and boys like trucks- how the heck does a monkey develop a gender based social paradigm for a truck, anyway?- at least SOME of this is genetically based instinct.

I want to know, what happens if you make plush trucks?

I have an anti-consumerist agenda. I'm trying to teach my daughter to find identity and fulfillment in her accomplishments and contributions to community instead of her possessions.

I have several Gay agendas http://www.reigninggifts.com/images/6FuzzyNotebookPenSet3631626.jpg

You're really going to hate this:

http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/index/yerkes-app/story.90/title.yerkes-researchers-find-sex-differences-in-monkey-toy-preferences-similar-to-humans

In short, unless Rhesus monkey mommies and daddies have been going around behind our backs teaching their little monkeys that girls like plush toys and boys like trucks- how the heck does a monkey develop a gender based social paradigm for a truck, anyway?- at least SOME of this is genetically based instinct.

I want to know, what happens if you make plush trucks?
Did you know that I'm not a monkey?

i may have had what looked like a gay agenda. but then i got some counseling with ted haggard, and after a mere three weeks my agenda was certified completely heterosexual.

I have several Gay agendas http://www.reigninggifts.com/images/6FuzzyNotebookPenSet3631626.jpg
That's a furry agenda! :mad:
You monster.

Did you know that I'm not a monkey?

It's the internet. No one really knows anything about each other.

"Look, Dr. Anderson, come quickly, I told you Bonzo could type!"

That's a furry agenda! :mad:
You monster.

If you don't want to be a furry that's one thing, but please don't call them monsters. Some people have different sexual proclivities than you, just get over it.

That's a furry agenda! :mad:
You monster.
:eek:
GET PETA!!
It's the internet. No one really knows anything about each other.

"Look, Dr. Anderson, come quickly, I told you Bonzo could type!"
:p

:eek:
GET PETA!!
No, Smunkee got the cookie for getting the reference there.

If you don't want to be a furry that's one thing, but please don't call them monsters.

even if they dress up as, for example, cookie monster?

even if they dress up as, for example, cookie monster?

*scritch*

If you don't want to be a furry that's one thing, but please don't call them monsters. Some people have different sexual proclivities than you, just get over it.
Don't fall for their tricks! They tried to bait our children with Disney movies, and now we're paying the price! :eek:

If you don't want to be a furry that's one thing, but please don't call them monsters. Some people have different sexual proclivities than you, just get over it.

Thanks dude, Sorry that was my Furry agenda. Here is my Gay agenda which I keep in my gay manpurse http://www.miamihomedecorinc.com/assets/product_images/product_lib/35000-35999/35218.gif

how can you even have a princess face paint :confused:

I guess I try to get people to go out and do things, my recent effort being to to get a friend in the police force like she has always wanted (which is surprisingly hard work)

Did you know that I'm not a monkey?

well I suppose the same goes for apes (I so want a pet Rhesus Macaque now)

You're really going to hate this:

http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/index/yerkes-app/story.90/title.yerkes-researchers-find-sex-differences-in-monkey-toy-preferences-similar-to-humans

In short, unless Rhesus monkey mommies and daddies have been going around behind our backs teaching their little monkeys that girls like plush toys and boys like trucks- how the heck does a monkey develop a gender based social paradigm for a truck, anyway?- at least SOME of this is genetically based instinct.

I want to know, what happens if you make plush trucks?

Well, really the fact that it is genetic (entirely or partially) doesn't really hold much bearing on whether or not we should encourage/discourage it. I mean, if it is true that most boys have a genetic predisposition to prefer GI Joe to Barbie, that's fine, but that's not to say that they should be discouraged from playing with Barbies. Same goes for girls and GI Joes.

And if you make plush trucks, you get an awesome toy that everyone can enjoy.

Come to think of it, I'll bet they have Bob the Builder plush trucks.

Well, really the fact that it is genetic (entirely or partially) doesn't really hold much bearing on whether or not we should encourage/discourage it. I mean, if it is true that most boys have a genetic predisposition to prefer GI Joe to Barbie, that's fine, but that's not to say that they should be discouraged from playing with Barbies. Same goes for girls and GI Joes.

And if you make plush trucks, you get an awesome toy that everyone can enjoy.

Come to think of it, I'll bet they have Bob the Builder plush trucks.

Ugh. I hate toy cars.

Ugh. I hate toy cars.

I said a toy that EVERYONE can enjoy. *shakes fist* (Sorry to the guy that hates that)




Well, go ahead. START ENJOYING.

I said a toy that EVERYONE can enjoy. *shakes fist* (Sorry to the guy that hates that)




Well, go ahead. START ENJOYING.

*Breaks toy car in half. Throws a tantrum*

at least SOME of this is genetically based instinct.

Yeah, but so what?

Still doesn't mean we should be pushing our children to go with one or the other... let them do what they want.

*Breaks toy car in half. Throws a tantrum*

have you ever tried to break those things in half?

fucking adamantium I swear

Still doesn't mean we should be pushing our children to go with one or the other... let them do what they want.

I think its something to consider when your doing your Christmas shopping

plus boys toys are far superior and any child who think otherwise has issues :p

If you raise your children to be homophobes and rigidly crammed into gender stereotypes, no amount of 'name-calling is for children' changes the fact that doing so makes you a bad person. Sorry.

So much for not pushing one's beliefs on others :p

Yeah, but so what?

Still doesn't mean we should be pushing our children to go with one or the other... let them do what they want.


The So What part is that when, despite our best efforts to be modern, tolerant, educated people, the little tykes fall into the classic patterns, we have to remind ourselves that it's not a failing, not society "forcing" them into the roles, it is merely the wonder of Evolution in action, which has produced a species that combines tried and true instinctive behavior with an occassional drive to deviate, just in case.

have you ever tried to break those things in half?

fucking adamantium I swear

Hammers. REALLY BIG HAMMERS!

I admit it. It's completely true.

Why do you hate freedom?

So much for not pushing one's beliefs on others :p

It is impossible to not push some beliefs on others. If only to maintain law and order ;)

Why do you hate freedom?

Cause God wants me to think of the children !

Cause God wants me to think of the children !

pervert!

I don't care what people do so long as they understand that:

A: Morality says your bedroom thoughts should stay there!

B: I reserve the right to quietly disapprove of them.

C: Just Because I don't support burning gays at the stake does not mean I want to sleep with guys!

I have an agenda to get myself an agenda. I feel so naked without one...

That's hot.

Also, no offense, but i HATE when people *put their actions in asterisks*. i have an anti-that agenda.

*puts her action in asteriks and watches Grondisbald have a conniption fit*

I just want people to be reasonable. And I'm willing to get there by any means necessary.

Like, reasonable in thought and belief or reasonable in action?

Because I'm plenty unreasonable sometimes in action. During certain debates, during the playoff season...at the bar after drinking too many gin and tonics. But I consider myself very reasonable in thought and belief.

I have an open mindedness agenda. I feel as long as people are happy with their choice then let them be happy. What right do I have to tell someone they are living life wrong?

You're really going to hate this:

http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/index/yerkes-app/story.90/title.yerkes-researchers-find-sex-differences-in-monkey-toy-preferences-similar-to-humans

In short, unless Rhesus monkey mommies and daddies have been going around behind our backs teaching their little monkeys that girls like plush toys and boys like trucks- how the heck does a monkey develop a gender based social paradigm for a truck, anyway?- at least SOME of this is genetically based instinct.

I want to know, what happens if you make plush trucks?

Oh trust me...I was 100% adamant that it was nurture over nature baby...until I had kids. Kids who did things before the age of one that were the quirks of their grandparents, uncles, or other family members...some of whom they had never met. There is no way I taught them those things. Somehow, they are imprinted on their genetic codes.

I am a raving tomboy. I don't necessarily want to be...I'd like to be more comfortable in dresses, for example. My girls are a wonderful blend of girly girls and grubby mud bugs.

For sure, children are going to be naturally drawn to certain things. I support encouraging them in those things as long as they aren't criminal. If that means little Christine loves princess dresses and pink tiaras, then so be it. But if she wants the spiderman 'action figure' and someone takes it out of her little hands telling her that it's only for boys, I get stabby, to quote a chick I'm rather fond of over at UMP.

I would no more force a boy to play with plush whatchamacallits to prove a point than I would yell at him for wanting to wear a tootoo.

how can you even have a princess face paint :confused:
I just got back from a face-painting session with about 25 screaming kinders...apparently princess face paint is subjective. It can consist of butterfuly wings over your eyes and pretty lips, or it can be sparkles and stars. I'm sorry to say, not a single boy had the courage to ask for this, though one wanted 'boy sparkles and stars'.

I guess I try to get people to go out and do things, my recent effort being to to get a friend in the police force like she has always wanted (which is surprisingly hard work) Yeah, I'd like to see more women in construction, especially with both Alberta and Saskatchewan booming like crazy right now. Waaaay better money than waitressing or what have you.

So much for not pushing one's beliefs on others :p

Are you nuts?

Say it with me, "Being a homophobe, a racist, or someone who forces others to adhere to rigid gender stereotypes is BAD".

You can disagree, but you'd better pull some pretty compelling evidence out of your ass besides, 'oh! You're intolerant of intolerance!'

Yes, yes I am. And I have no problem 'pushing' those beliefs on others. They are free to push back. My arguments will win.

Like, reasonable in thought and belief or reasonable in action?

Thought and belief, mostly. In the case of action, a little insanity is a good thing, as long as you know when to draw the line.

The So What part is that when, despite our best efforts to be modern, tolerant, educated people, the little tykes fall into the classic patterns, we have to remind ourselves that it's not a failing, not society "forcing" them into the roles, it is merely the wonder of Evolution in action, which has produced a species that combines tried and true instinctive behavior with an occassional drive to deviate, just in case.

If.

It still shocks me to hear mothers tell their boys not to cry because they are boys. As if that's a reason, or a justification. But they're doing it.

If you actually are a tolerant, educated and aware parent, you'll avoid those things. It doesn't mean that the other kids, yelled at by parents for their 'deviations' won't be shitting on your boy if he cries.

Society is more than the sum of parents, peers, and the media...it is much more pervasive than even that. You cannot shield your children from all the various influences they'll be surrounded by...you simply have to challenge those influences every chance you get.

I have an anti-consumerist agenda. I'm trying to teach my daughter to find identity and fulfillment in her accomplishments and contributions to community instead of her possessions.

you know, that is basically what communism is. it is capitalism that values possessions.

i quote Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind, where he lists six conservative principles:

"Property and freedom are inseparably connected"

this is the possession based mindset that has been supported by free-market fundamentalists like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, the kings of the anti-communist movement

Thought and belief, mostly. In the case of action, a little insanity is a good thing, as long as you know when to draw the line.

Yeah okay well hmmm, I'm somewhat okay at that last part as long as I haven't been drinking, or I'm not madly in love.

Since I'm wildly infatuated, and completely sober, I think I might be okay.

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

I don't have an agenda, particularly. When my kids were growing up my daughter played with my son's trucks and guns, my son played with my daughter's dolls (she didn't want them). They both had paper routes. My daughter collects guns, bayonets and comic books, my son collects pictures of fairies, guns and electronics. They're both straight, but not particularly homophobic. I guess my agenda was that they both decide what they liked not what I wanted them to like. I guess it worked.

(I am, for the record, divorced. My ex didn't like my agenda, it seems).

My primary agenda is the removal of the arts from our schools. Who's gonna tell my kids what's good and what's not? Not the schools, that's for sure. I also hope to see an end to school music programs, athletic activities, and anything that is not based on a hard science.

you are joking, right?

Heres my agenda: Whenever I have kids I'll let them play with what they want, its that simple.

I'm not going to tell boys to play with dolls and girls to play with trucks and vice versa. Its not my job to tell them how to play.

I have a human agenda.

I treat other people like people and don't judge what they do in private so long as everyone is a consenting adult.

So what's your agenda?

Pretty much the same, only I'm a teacher, so I'm less "this is right" and more "that isn't wrong."

Oh, if only they knew what mutual acceptance and freedom from stereotyping I was fostering among their children...!

Well, really the fact that it is genetic (entirely or partially) doesn't really hold much bearing on whether or not we should encourage/discourage it. I mean, if it is true that most boys have a genetic predisposition to prefer GI Joe to Barbie, that's fine, but that's not to say that they should be discouraged from playing with Barbies. Same goes for girls and GI Joes.

And if you make plush trucks, you get an awesome toy that everyone can enjoy.

Come to think of it, I'll bet they have Bob the Builder plush trucks.

According to the linked article, regular toy trucks are a toy just about everyone can enjoy. It said that boys wanted stuff with wheels, while girls played equally with stuff with wheels and plush toys.

*nodnod*

The So What part is that when, despite our best efforts to be modern, tolerant, educated people, the little tykes fall into the classic patterns, we have to remind ourselves that it's not a failing, not society "forcing" them into the roles, it is merely the wonder of Evolution in action, which has produced a species that combines tried and true instinctive behavior with an occassional drive to deviate, just in case.

Of course, when some of the tykes don't fit into those patterns, we don't need to think something is wrong with them either.

The idea isn't to suggest that men can't have traditionally "masculine" preferences and women can't have traditionally "feminine" preferences. It's just that there's no reason to push them. If more women happen to fit into a particular mold than men, so be it. But there's nothing wrong with the women who don't fit it or the women who do.

:eek:

Neesika has children?

If.

It still shocks me to hear mothers tell their boys not to cry because they are boys. As if that's a reason, or a justification. But they're doing it.

If you actually are a tolerant, educated and aware parent, you'll avoid those things. It doesn't mean that the other kids, yelled at by parents for their 'deviations' won't be shitting on your boy if he cries.


I don't know. It usually annoyed me when anyone, male or female, cries -- unless someone close to them dies or something similarly traumatic. And even then, in moderation. Whiny people just bug me. I typically just tell them to harden up and stop bitching.

In other words, I agree that it's wrong to tell a boy not to cry because "boys aren't suppose to cry." I think it's fine to tell a kid, boy or girl, not to cry because it's a pointless and annoying sign of weakness and waste of energy -- as long as you hold both boys and girls to the same standard.

But I'd be a mean parent, so what do I know?

:eek:

Neesika has children?

I spawned twice.

I spawned twice.

*World explodes, is stitched back together, turned into hell, freezes, melts, turns into a blanket with the rest of the universe, is ripped, explodes again, and turns back into Earth*

*And explodes again.*

you know, that is basically what communism is. it is capitalism that values possessions.

i quote Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind, where he lists six conservative principles:

"Property and freedom are inseparably connected"

I didn't say I had anything against private property. I think its wrong-headed to use what we own as a yardstick for our self-worth. I own what I need to be comfortable, and I exercise my freedom not to engage in conspicuous consumption.

this is the possession based mindset that has been supported by free-market fundamentalists like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, the kings of the anti-communist movement

Well, if the Reagan-Goldwater foundation has a problem with me I know I must be on the right track.

My agenda is the promotion of the super hero movie as a respected medium, honoring the tradition of the source material. Batman Begins, Superman II: the Richard Donnor Cut, Spiderman, Iron Man and X-Men are all examples of proper works.

Also, SANCTO SUBITO! Sainthood for John Paul II!

And a professional shrink banning my mother from ever stocking the fridge with diet soda and light alcohol when she knows that I'm coming home to visit. And my dad drinks regular, sugary pepsi. And I'm thinner than he is!

Add to that the promotion of teaching Latin and members of the Gaelic family languages in high schools and universities, and a few releases on the restrictions for me to set up a fortress for surviving the coming Zombie War, and I'll be set.

Oh, and there will be no diet-anything at my fortress. That is, if I can't find a way to Zombie-weaponize said diet drinks.

My agenda is the promotion of the super hero movie as a respected medium, honoring the tradition of the source material. Batman Begins, Superman II: the Richard Donnor Cut, Spiderman, Iron Man and X-Men

Aw, man, and I was almost with you. Unless you are ONLY referring to the first movie and definitely, definitely not the abomination that is X-III.

True story: I could not see the most recent Punisher movie because I couldn't stop thinking about Dolph Lundgren and giggling.

b/c my brain's too small to ignore the distinctions between men and women. Penisis can go penetrate penises and labias can receive vaginas? Your understanding is too far beyond physical reality for me to comprehend.
:upyours::headbang::fluffle::gundge:

My agenda is mostly political. Also, spiritual/emotional/psychological combined.

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

Brainwashing kids whether it be for homosexual agendas, religious agendas or any other agenda other than the welfare of the kids themselves is bad. :(

You sure did a good satire of it though. :p

b/c my brain's too small to ignore the distinctions between men and women. Penisis can go penetrate penises and labias can receive vaginas? Your understanding is too far beyond physical reality for me to comprehend.
:upyours::headbang::fluffle::gundge:

Awww. Are you cranky cause there's a lack of blowjobs in your life cause you don't believe they're possible?

I spawned twice.

COnsidering what you'll be teaching your kids and what I'll be teaching my kids, just imagine if they eventually met and bred. :eek:

both me and my girlfriend are straight, (maybe bi *shrugs)

she has engaged in... sex with another women but i at this stage still haven't but talk about it with her all the time

COnsidering what you'll be teaching your kids and what I'll be teaching my kids, just imagine if they eventually met and bred. :eek:

http://images.elfwood.com/art/k/e/kevinhanse/freaky_purple_guy.jpg

DUNNNN DUNNNN DUNNNN :eek:

I've got a "You've got a brain, so please think for yourself" agenda.

My sub-agendas are "Don't reach a conclusion until you've seen all the facts you can get your hands on" and "Thinking and evaluating is good, believing is bad".

The underlying concept is "There is no absolute truth, it always depends on the context, so don't waste time looking for it, or defending it. Be mentally flexible." And when in doubt, "Cui bono"?

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

I approve of the gay agenda, even if it is something as diabolical as weddings. :)

I don't know how I feel about gender-blending though, but that's simply because androgynous men/women just kinda weird me out. There's no rational reason for that, and it's not hurting anybody, so I don't think it can be wrong really, just for some reason makes my stomach kinda twist.


Anyway, my agenda is Northern California (specifically the Bay Area) Nationalism. Yes, I know it's not a nation, but if it was I'd be a nationalist for it. My agenda is my area's glorification. I might even be called a jingoist in that respect, as I am known to have rather heated remarks about LA's inferiority to the great Yay Area ;)

Seriously, I don't know if I have any one, single agenda. Because there's the environmental "agenda," (you know, stopping pollution and degradation of the environment and trying to stop causing global warming, especially since even in the best case scenario predicted, my house will be under water), and also the secularist agenda (wanting religion, especially Christianity and other Abrahamic faiths to get the fuck out of my laws and government), the pagan agenda (wanting more people to abandon the Abrahamic god for ancestral faiths, but of course, keeping them out of government as well), the anti-corporate agenda and so on and so forth.

b/c my brain's too small to ignore the distinctions between men and women. Penisis can go penetrate penises and labias can receive vaginas? Your understanding is too far beyond physical reality for me to comprehend.
:upyours::headbang::fluffle::gundge:

Your concept of sexual interaction is a bit limited. My ladyfriend and I do several things that are very sexual, but do not involve a penis penetrating a vagina. A few of them could also be done by two women, and a couple of them could be done by two men.

Of course, women can penetrate women with the use of sex toys. Of course, these things cost money, but really, it is a small purchase compared to how much cash is spent on relationships.

Naturally, this response is wasted, since you're an obvious troll of a rather inferior caliber, not nearly as good as some of the outstanding trolls we've had here.

I have an agenda of changing my agenda in such a way that most directly involved people are extremely pissed off. Because emotion is living, anger a strong emotion at that.

Homos have no souls.

Kids are MEANT to be TAUGHT by their parents, else they would be born big.

Most people that posted here's parents should never have met each other.

I have an agenda of changing my agenda in such a way that most directly involved people are extremely pissed off. Because emotion is living, anger a strong emotion at that.

Homos have no souls.

Kids are MEANT to be TAUGHT by their parents, else they would be born big.

Most people that posted here's parents should never have met each other.

I would say that I definitely should not have met your mother.

A brilliant agenda. If you avoid prescribing one sexuality or gender over another, rather provide choice and make clear the offerings, what more could one want?

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

This from a person who is fearful their child is being indoctrinated into being religious if I recall correctly.

The greatest right a person has is to raise their children according to what they believe is right and wrong. It would seem that you casually toss aside this right, that you fully expect to be upheld when it comes to your children, to make yourself feel superior. Yes, you think you are better than them. That is quite clear. Superior enough to push an agenda on children that are not your own.

But what makes you so superior? I see the same small-mindedness in you pushing "gender-bending" on other's children that you see in others pushing masculine and feminine roles. Just as there is nothing wrong with flaming homosexuals and butch lesbians (or men and women who simply appear or act that way) there is nothing wrong with manly men and girly girls. The point is that it is the parent's decision, outside of natural tendencies of course, to teach their children such things and you have no right to impose your agenda on children that are not your own.

So you rest in the comfort of your own delusions Neesika but I am certain, from what I have seen of your posts, that you would take issue if someone attempted such a blatant imposition of values upon one of your children. It is a shame that you would not offer that same right to another.

One last note: I always thought the goal of the "gay agenda" was to have gays and lesbians be accepted for who they are. To not have to hide their identities in order to avoid discrimination or possible physical harm. To be able to take pride in who they are.

Neesika's version involves the subversion of another's parental right and an attempt to push, what she perceives, homosexuality or "gender-bending" upon others. That does not make her a champion of homosexuals, it makes her a dominating, elitist bitch who can be pointed at by the "ugly, small-minded fools" as an example of the gay agenda being pushed upon their children. I see no benefit, only harm, to your actions for the homosexual community.

I now return you to your smug superiority. I am certain you will proclaim yourself the "winner".

One last note: I always thought the goal of the "gay agenda" was to have gays and lesbians be accepted for who they are. To not have to hide their identities in order to avoid discrimination or possible physical harm. To be able to take pride in who they are.

Neesika's version involves the subversion of another's parental right and an attempt to push, what she perceives, homosexuality or "gender-bending" upon others. That does not make her a champion of homosexuals, it makes her a dominating, elitist bitch who can be pointed at by the "ugly, small-minded fools" as an example of the gay agenda being pushed upon their children. I see no benefit, only harm, to your actions for the homosexual community.

Did you read the same post I did?
She's not imposing anything, from what I can tell... she's after all not forcing her girls into playing with toy cars and kissing other girls.
What she does is tell them it's ok to do if they want to... which in my book does fit in well with the gay agenda of being accepted for who you are and accepting others for who they are.

But sure, go ahead and delude yourself by believing that not telling a little boy to stop crying and "take it like a man" and by not telling a little girl she can't wear blue but should wear pink you're indoctrinating and pushing homosexuality on the kids...

Doesn't everyone already know the Gay Agenda? Someone blabbed and revealed it to the world a while ago...

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.

8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.

8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.

8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.

8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.

9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.

9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."

10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.

12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.

1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.

2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.

3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.

4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.

6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.

6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.

10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.

12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.

Did you read the same post I did?

Did you read mine?

Her post reeks with the thought that conveying to one's own child standard masculine and feminine roles is small minded and homophobic. She seems to believe that a parent not wishing their boy to be a princess is a bad thing. I believe it to be that parent's perogative to dictate what another adult can paint on their child's face. That she would infringe upon that right is repulsive to me.

She has every right to enforce "gender bending" upon her own children. I personally allow my children to pick up what ever toys they wish and wear whatever clothes they wish but I don't have the ignorance to believe that those who do not are somehow inferior or bigoted.

While she may take on an air of smugness I would say that it is the end result that counts. There is no indication that enforced male/female roles produces inferior adults than non-enforced male/female roles.

Did you read mine?

Her post reeks with the thought that conveying to one's own child standard masculine and feminine roles is small minded and homophobic. She seems to believe that a parent not wishing their boy to be a princess is a bad thing. I believe it to be that parent's perogative to dictate what another adult can paint on their child's face. That she would infringe upon that right is repulsive to me.

She has every right to enforce "gender bending" upon her own children. I personally allow my children to pick up what ever toys they wish and wear whatever clothes they wish but I don't have the ignorance to believe that those who do not are somehow inferior or bigoted.

While she may take on an air of smugness I would say that it is the end result that counts. There is no indication that enforced male/female roles produces inferior adults than non-enforced male/female roles.

Funny, I would have thought it's the child's choice what he/she wants painted on their faces...

And yes, I would say it is bad not to wishing your boy to be a princess. You ought to love that kid, princess or prince, and that entails respecting his personal choices of identity. You don't get to choose, the kid gets to.

Did you know that I'm not a monkey?

It's the internet. No one really knows anything about each other.

"Look, Dr. Anderson, come quickly, I told you Bonzo could type!"

So are you making progress on that Shakespeare manuscript?

From What I've read so far You lot are all mad, bad and dangerous!

From What I've read so far You lot are all mad, bad and dangerous!Says someone that would accept governorship over the reinstated crown colony of Zimbabwe...
...despite still going to school.

Aw, man, and I was almost with you. Unless you are ONLY referring to the first movie and definitely, definitely not the abomination that is X-III.

True story: I could not see the most recent Punisher movie because I couldn't stop thinking about Dolph Lundgren and giggling.

Please, X-3 sucked. And Spiderman III was only a little bit better. I mean, come on, "New Goblin"? They should have gone with Hobgoblin and been done with it. And Venom didn't get nearly enough screen time. I liked Topher Grace, but the scripting was seriously screwed up.

I am looking forward to Ray Stevenson (My boy Titus Pullo from Rome) and Dominic West (McNulty from The Wire) in "Punisher: War Zone".

Says someone that would accept governorship over the reinstated crown colony of Zimbabwe...
...despite still going to school.

If Shenton Thomas can be a colonial Govenor anyone can!!!!!!

This from a person who is fearful their child is being indoctrinated into being religious if I recall correctly.

The greatest right a person has is to raise their children according to what they believe is right and wrong. It would seem that you casually toss aside this right, that you fully expect to be upheld when it comes to your children, to make yourself feel superior. Yes, you think you are better than them. That is quite clear. Superior enough to push an agenda on children that are not your own.

But what makes you so superior? I see the same small-mindedness in you pushing "gender-bending" on other's children that you see in others pushing masculine and feminine roles. Just as there is nothing wrong with flaming homosexuals and butch lesbians (or men and women who simply appear or act that way) there is nothing wrong with manly men and girly girls. The point is that it is the parent's decision, outside of natural tendencies of course, to teach their children such things and you have no right to impose your agenda on children that are not your own.

So you rest in the comfort of your own delusions Neesika but I am certain, from what I have seen of your posts, that you would take issue if someone attempted such a blatant imposition of values upon one of your children. It is a shame that you would not offer that same right to another.

One last note: I always thought the goal of the "gay agenda" was to have gays and lesbians be accepted for who they are. To not have to hide their identities in order to avoid discrimination or possible physical harm. To be able to take pride in who they are.

Neesika's version involves the subversion of another's parental right and an attempt to push, what she perceives, homosexuality or "gender-bending" upon others. That does not make her a champion of homosexuals, it makes her a dominating, elitist bitch who can be pointed at by the "ugly, small-minded fools" as an example of the gay agenda being pushed upon their children. I see no benefit, only harm, to your actions for the homosexual community.

I now return you to your smug superiority. I am certain you will proclaim yourself the "winner".

You rock.

My agenda is simple; I just don't like QUEERS. Any guy who looks at another guy's hairy ass and says "I gotta get me some of that" obviously has a couple of screws loose and is not someone I want to hang around with.

With love,
Your friendly neighborhood ugly, small-minded fool (I'll wear that on my chest as a badge of honor among normal people)

Funny, I would have thought it's the child's choice what he/she wants painted on their faces...

And yes, I would say it is bad not to wishing your boy to be a princess. You ought to love that kid, princess or prince, and that entails respecting his personal choices of identity. You don't get to choose, the kid gets to.

Meh, I think realistically the personality of a kid is most strongly determined by the actions of your parents anyway.

My agenda is simple; I just don't like QUEERS. Any guy who looks at another guy's hairy ass and says "I gotta get me some of that" obviously has a couple of screws loose and is not someone I want to hang around with.

With love,
Your friendly neighborhood ugly, small-minded fool (I'll wear that on my chest as a badge of honor among normal people)There's no such thing.

Her post reeks with the thought that conveying to one's own child standard masculine and feminine roles is small minded and homophobic.

Well, I don't know if it's "homophobic" per se, but it's certainly unethical. Children are not objects.

She seems to believe that a parent not wishing their boy to be a princess is a bad thing.

First and foremost, parents should wish that their children have the freedom to develop freely, on their own terms--not according to parental indoctrination.

Beyond that, they can wish whatever they like for their children, just like any person can wish for any other person, but they have no right to impose that conception.

I believe it to be that parent's perogative to dictate what another adult can paint on their child's face.

Perhaps, but like all parental prerogatives, it is not one that should be exercised absolutely. Certainly parents have the right to stop someone from painting on their child's face if that painting is somehow harmful. But not if it simply disturbs their rigid conceptions of gender roles.

She has every right to enforce "gender bending" upon her own children.

She never said she "enforced" gender bending. What she said was that she was willing to accept and encourage the "gender bending" that is natural to children.

Meh, I think realistically the personality of a kid is most strongly determined by the actions of your parents anyway.

Don't traumatize me.


Also, a boy dressing up as a princess has nothing to do with his gender or sexual preference. Princesses are asthetically pleasing and made of imagination and fun, any child who likes to pretend might be interested in that.

Don't traumatize me.


Why would that be traumatizing?


Also, a boy dressing up as a princess has nothing to do with his gender or sexual preference. Princesses are asthetically pleasing and made of imagination and fun, any child who likes to pretend might be interested in that.

Indeed, in fact I believe in the 19th and 18th century, the most masculine colour was actually pink. Goes to show how arbitrary it all really is.

Indeed, in fact I believe in the 19th and 18th century, the most masculine colour was actually pink. Goes to show how arbitrary it all really is.Red, actually. Blue was feminine. Stems from red being baby Jeebus' color of choice, while blue is the Virgin Mary's. Still like that in the Netherlands, if I'm not much mistaken.

Why would that be traumatizing?
I have children. What if I influence them in some way. :eek:


Indeed, in fact I believe in the 19th and 18th century, the most masculine colour was actually pink. Goes to show how arbitrary it all really is.
Growing up people assumed me a lesbian because I liked to hunt and fish, and watch sci-fi and play video games. I'm also married to a man who routinely gets called "gay" by a bunch of rednecks we sadly seem to be related to because he likes musicals, and watches sci-fi, and plays video games, and wears clothes that are pressed and clean and grooms himself.

It's all bull shit if you ask me.

Red, actually. Blue was feminine. Stems from red being baby Jeebus' color of choice, while blue is the Virgin Mary's. Still like that in the Netherlands, if I'm not much mistaken.

Hmmm, but wiki says: From then until the 1940s, pink was considered appropriate for boys because it was the more masculine and decided color while blue was considered appropriate for girls because it was the more delicate and dainty color

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Pink_in_gender

edit: i guess I got the dates wrong, but still

My agenda is simple; I just don't like QUEERS.

Yeah, we generally don't like people like you much either.

Any guy who looks at another guy's hairy ass and says "I gotta get me some of that" obviously has a couple of screws loose and is not someone I want to hang around with.

Oh, poor you--are you afraid of catching the Queer Germ? Scared we might convert you?

Be careful. We're everywhere. And we won't stop until we have everything.

With love,
Your friendly neighborhood ugly, small-minded fool (I'll wear that on my chest as a badge of honor among normal people)

Such courage! Such steadfastness! Keep it up, and someday you might even graduate middle school.

Meh, I think realistically the personality of a kid is most strongly determined by the actions of your parents anyway.

I think you don't have a lot of contact with kids. ;)

Yes, they will try to imitate their parents for a while, usually until they're around 3 or 4 years old. And from that moment on, the parental influence gently wanes away...

I think you don't have a lot of contact with kids. ;)

Yes, they will try to imitate their parents for a while, usually until they're around 3 or 4 years old. And from that moment on, the parental influence gently wanes away...

Then it comes back when you're about 30 and you realize 'OMG! I'm just like my mother!' :(

Then it comes back when you're about 30 and you realize 'OMG! I'm just like my mother!' :(

Yeah, but that can happen to sons AND daughters. :D

Sneaky genetics...

Yeah, but that can happen to sons AND daughters. :D
It's already creeping up on me. Quick! Someone lobotomize me before I turn in to .........her....

Sneaky genetics...
This thread is repeatedly traumatizing.

Then it comes back when you're about 30 and you realize 'OMG! I'm just like my mother!' :(

But much of that is genes.

I'm similar to both my parents in many respects, but I don't think I learned it from either. It's happened almost accidentally.

Perhaps, but like all parental prerogatives, it is not one that should be exercised absolutely. Certainly parents have the right to stop someone from painting on their child's face if that painting is somehow harmful. But not if it simply disturbs their rigid conceptions of gender roles.


I'm sorry but as I read this one it comes across as "Certainly parents have the right to stop someone from painting on their child's face if that painting is somehow harmful. But not if it contradicts my point of view.

My friend, you don't get to decide what's harmful for someone else's kids.


Don't traumatize me.


Also, a boy dressing up as a princess has nothing to do with his gender or sexual preference. Princesses are asthetically pleasing and made of imagination and fun, any child who likes to pretend might be interested in that.

My sons dressed up as knights and wizards.
My older daughter dressed up as a princess.
(My younger daughter is still a baby and has yet to dress herself up as anything.)

And I'll bet any amount of money somebody on this thread will criticize me for it.

I think you don't have a lot of contact with kids. ;)


True, my siblings aren't so much kids as they are the devils spawn.


Yes, they will try to imitate their parents for a while, usually until they're around 3 or 4 years old. And from that moment on, the parental influence gently wanes away...

Assuming what you say is true, isn't your personality pretty much set by 4 years old?

Assuming what you say is true, isn't your personality pretty much set by 4 years old?

I don't believe personalities ever really set. They just change faster in children, and slow down with growing up. Or would you think you've got the same personality as you had when you were 13?
What kids do show are certain tendencies of behaviour, and they will maintain those tendencies throughout much of their lives. The way they deal with them, if they act on them or supress them, that will always be a process, never a finished product.

I'm sorry but as I read this one it comes across as "Certainly parents have the right to stop someone from painting on their child's face if that painting is somehow harmful. But not if it contradicts my point of view.

Your difficulties with reading comprehension are not my problem. There happen to be many parental impositions with which I would strongly sympathize. But they are still wrong.

My friend, you don't get to decide what's harmful for someone else's kids.

No, but I have the intelligence and rationality to see through the pathetic bigoted excuse of "It harms them!" when it comes to something innocuous like painting a boy's face like a princess.

Or would you think you've got the same personality as you had when you were 13?

Pretty much, except from being smarter and having more self control.


What kids do show are certain tendencies of behaviour, and they will maintain those tendencies throughout much of their lives.

Again, assuming what you say is true and everything, isn't one of those tendencies gender identification?

My sons dressed up as knights and wizards.
My older daughter dressed up as a princess.
(My younger daughter is still a baby and has yet to dress herself up as anything.)

And I'll bet any amount of money somebody on this thread will criticize me for it.


Not unless you forced them to dress in those costumes (and I assume you didn't).

Your difficulties with reading comprehension are not my problem. There happen to be many parental impositions with which I would strongly sympathize. But they are still wrong.


You said it's alright for a parent to make that call (what can be painted on their child's face) then qualified that by saying "But not if it simply disturbs their rigid conceptions of gender roles."

Who makes that judgment? You? My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Wanna turn this into a pissing match?

If you think I misunderstood something then by all means, please clarify it.


No, but I have the intelligence and rationality to see through the pathetic bigoted excuse of "It harms them!" when it comes to something innocuous like painting a boy's face like a princess.

Are you saying that the only possible reason for a parent to decline to allow his or her son's face to be painted like a princess is bigotry?

Not unless you forced them to dress in those costumes (and I assume you didn't).

You assume correctly... but that won't stop some of the more irrationals out there.

You assume correctly... but that won't stop some of the more irrationals out there.

Of course not. If it did, they wouldn't be irrational.

Of course not. If it did, they wouldn't be irrational.

Touche'

Brainwashing kids whether it be for homosexual agendas, religious agendas or any other agenda other than the welfare of the kids themselves is bad. :(

You sure did a good satire of it though. :p
I love that people think I'm joking when I'm not, and miss my jokes when I tell them.

COnsidering what you'll be teaching your kids and what I'll be teaching my kids, just imagine if they eventually met and bred. :eek:

Mud covered adults of indeterminate genders living in polygamous clown communes somewhere in Nepal.

I like it!

This from a person who is fearful their child is being indoctrinated into being religious if I recall correctly.

The greatest right a person has is to raise their children according to what they believe is right and wrong. It would seem that you casually toss aside this right, that you fully expect to be upheld when it comes to your children, to make yourself feel superior. Yes, you think you are better than them. That is quite clear. Superior enough to push an agenda on children that are not your own. Yay! My arch-nemesis...the poster who is most likely to completely misrepresent my words in order to create something to attack!

Unless mommy is standing there telling little Tommy to 'pick something for boys', then I have no problem painting pink stars and hearts on his face. If that's what he's asked for.

You see...I can make a pretty good assumption depending on where I am that his mom or dad will disapprove or approve. However, unless they step in, I can't know for sure, so I will support the choices of the child in the choosing of his 'masculine' or 'feminine' face paints.

My gay agenda is that I am not going to impose gender restrictions on children in lieu of their parents. Wow! Do I ever overstep or what!

But what makes you so superior? I see the same small-mindedness in you pushing "gender-bending" on other's children that you see in others pushing masculine and feminine roles. Na, you see what you want to. Because I've already pointed out that I don't push. If little Tommy wants to play with sticks instead of fairy wands, I don't care.

My girls love princess dresses and rubber boots. One second they are the sweetest of girly girls, the next they are stripped down and covered in mud.

I like that they have the confidence to do as they please without first asking themselves 'are girls allowed to do this?'

If you as a parent want your kids to adhere to rigid gender-based guidelines, you're an idiot. Sorry.

I notice you haven't justified the above...I'll wait for you to do so before I go into more detail on said idiocy.


Just as there is nothing wrong with flaming homosexuals and butch lesbians (or men and women who simply appear or act that way) there is nothing wrong with manly men and girly girls. Nor did I say there was.

It must be so frustrating to dislike me so much and really have nothing to grasp onto when it comes to criticising me. Because I rarely say the things you claim I do, and I'm pretty good at pointing out your faulty reading comprehension as well as backing it up with quotes of my actual words.

I'm so sorry that you want me to be someone you can feel good about yelling at. Don't let the truth interfere with your self-righteousness, k?

The point is that it is the parent's decision, oof natural tendencies of course, to teach their children such things and you have no right to impose your agenda on children that are not your own. Actually, as a teacher, I am obliged to teach children the ills of racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. You, as a parent, are always welcome to yank your children from the public education system and indoctrinate them as you wish.

Just as I can not ultimately control the religious (or not) leanings of my children...only influence them, parents cannot ultimately control the sexuality, or the gender traits of their children, no matter how hard they try.

Teaching your children that homosexuals are evil, and that girls who wear pants are sluts...is wrong. You can do it. It's your right. But it's wrong.

So you rest in the comfort of your own delusions Neesika but I am certain, from what I have seen of your posts, that you would take issue if someone attempted such a blatant imposition of values upon one of your children. It is a shame that you would not offer that same right to another. Blah blah blah. Read the above. Except you won't. As usual.

One last note: I always thought the goal of the "gay agenda" was to have gays and lesbians be accepted for who they are. To not have to hide their identities in order to avoid discrimination or possible physical harm. To be able to take pride in who they are. I'm being facetious. I didn't have time to talk about imposing the lesbian hairstyle on all girls and turning boys from frumpy into fabulous, sorry.

Neesika's version involves the subversion of another's parental right and an attempt to push, what she perceives, homosexuality or "gender-bending" upon others. That does not make her a champion of homosexuals, it makes her a dominating, elitist bitch who can be pointed at by the "ugly, small-minded fools" as an example of the gay agenda being pushed upon their children. I see no benefit, only harm, to your actions for the homosexual community.
Yes yes, you've already demonstrated your amazing straw-man building skills, and I've whooped your ass for it more times than I can count in so many other threads.

I now return you to your smug superiority. I am certain you will proclaim yourself the "winner".

As always, when it comes to an adversary of such meagre skills.

Did you read the same post I did?
She's not imposing anything, from what I can tell... she's after all not forcing her girls into playing with toy cars and kissing other girls.
What she does is tell them it's ok to do if they want to... which in my book does fit in well with the gay agenda of being accepted for who you are and accepting others for who they are.

But sure, go ahead and delude yourself by believing that not telling a little boy to stop crying and "take it like a man" and by not telling a little girl she can't wear blue but should wear pink you're indoctrinating and pushing homosexuality on the kids...Shhhhhh...he gets such joy from believing I'm an evil, twisted, hypocritical liberal communist bitch (insert more descriptors as necessary)...it's really sort of mean to disillusion him.

Thank you...I think he made it clear it was not his own work, but a source is always appreciated.

I just like Betty Bowers. She makes me want to throw a colour coordinated brick at anyone who hates Jesus. Oh wow, she made a video!

http://bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=30

EDIT: This was a time warp of over half an hour. Jolt is verging on extreme suckage.

Doesn't everyone already know the Gay Agenda? Someone blabbed and revealed it to the world a while ago...



Fantastic :D

You rock.

Hilarious. You don't have the skills to debate me, so you turn to someone else who doesn't have the skills to actually interpret my posts. What a fine pair you make...perhaps if you work really hard together, you might come up with an argument between the two of you.

I won't hold my breath though.

Yes, I'm smug that I'm not a homophobic, and that I don't believe it's wrong for boys to like pink. I'm smug in relation to those who are homophobic and ridiculously stuck on gender stereotypes. It's such a shame my smugness is entirely warranted.

Meh, I think realistically the personality of a kid is most strongly determined by the actions of your parents anyway.

Yet much less than we as parents would wish sometimes :D

Red, actually. Blue was feminine. Stems from red being baby Jeebus' color of choice, while blue is the Virgin Mary's. Still like that in the Netherlands, if I'm not much mistaken.

Don't forget that for quite some time, men's legs were sex objects, whilst those of their feminine counterparts weren't nearly as desireable :D

Hilarious. You don't have the skills to debate me, so you turn to someone else who doesn't have the skills to actually interpret my posts. What a fine pair you make...perhaps if you work really hard together, you might come up with an argument between the two of you.

I won't hold my breath though.


That was one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen. Hats off to you.

Not that I've never seen you show support for someone's post with whom you agree. Shall I, in the future, interpret that act as a sign of your inability to debate?


Yes, I'm smug that I'm not a homophobic, and that I don't believe it's wrong for boys to like pink. I'm smug in relation to those who are homophobic and ridiculously stuck on gender stereotypes. It's such a shame my smugness is entirely warranted.

Ahhh out come the labels *whoosh* just like that.

You know, you can say what you like about people like me and TSF but at the end of the day we're not the ones out there spewing hypocrisy from every possible orifice. You preach, you put down other people's beliefs, you justify every word and action you commit on the basis that your beliefs are 'right' and anybody who doesn't share them is (insert list of labels here.)

And then, on that same keyboard, you bang out long inane soliloquies about how evil Christians/Conservatives do EXACTLY THOSE THINGS and you revile them for it.

The irony being that no Conservative in this thread does what you accuse us of doing. Your entire philosophy is one big rotting strawman.

Just like you don't get to decide what someone's words mean, despite what is actually said.

I had to pause after I read this... It's really hard to type when you're trying to gasp for breath during fits of laughter. (Thanks for that, by the way. Laughing releases endorphins and I was having a very boring day until this.)

When, in my posts, I insist that you've misunderstood or misinterpreted me, you give me grief and accuse me of trying to weasel out. And now you're doing exactly that!

I'm curious, what's it like to live in a fantasy world where you're the exception to every rule and standard?


You and TSF seem to have a singular ability to completely ignore what is stated, and impose your agenda onto those words. It's a wonder you even need to post in a place with other people when you could, no doubt, quit happily create arguments in a vaccum. Though you're essentially doing that anyhow.


Ahh so if we don't like what you wrote, and have a problem with it, the only POSSIBLE explanation is that we simply didn't read what you wrote. It couldn't POSSIBLY be, for example, that:

1)You aren't very good at communicating your point
2)Your chose your words poorly
3)You don't like having bullshit called for what it is.


Please hold your breath while you wait for this to happen.

You truly live in delusion.

Actually I'm rather encouraged by the fact that it hasn't happened yet. There's hope after all.

Come on, Neesika. Post again. Show me some more hypocrisy. I've got a couple more hours 'till I go home for the day and some more laughter would really help pass the time.

I'm sorry but as I read this one it comes across as "Certainly parents have the right to stop someone from painting on their child's face if that painting is somehow harmful. But not if it contradicts my point of view.

My friend, you don't get to decide what's harmful for someone else's kids. Just like you don't get to decide what someone's words mean, despite what is actually said.

You and TSF seem to have a singular ability to completely ignore what is stated, and impose your agenda onto those words. It's a wonder you even need to post in a place with other people when you could, no doubt, quit happily create arguments in a vaccum. Though you're essentially doing that anyhow.


My sons dressed up as knights and wizards.
My older daughter dressed up as a princess.
(My younger daughter is still a baby and has yet to dress herself up as anything.)

And I'll bet any amount of money somebody on this thread will criticize me for it.
Please hold your breath while you wait for this to happen.

You truly live in delusion.

Don't forget that for quite some time, men's legs were sex objects, whilst those of their feminine counterparts weren't nearly as desireable :D

Makes sense to me!

Doesn't everyone already know the Gay Agenda? Someone blabbed and revealed it to the world a while ago...

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are....12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.

http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

Thank you...I think he made it clear it was not his own work, but a source is always appreciated.

My agenda is simple; I just don't like QUEERS. Any guy who looks at another guy's hairy ass and says "I gotta get me some of that" obviously has a couple of screws loose and is not someone I want to hang around with.

With love,
Your friendly neighborhood ugly, small-minded fool (I'll wear that on my chest as a badge of honor among normal people)

Is that because of your heart's wondering into territory you fear? ;)

I'm sorry but as I read this one it comes across as "Certainly parents have the right to stop someone from painting on their child's face if that painting is somehow harmful. But not if it contradicts my point of view.

My friend, you don't get to decide what's harmful for someone else's kids.

Of course, you can use reason to determine what is and is not harmful. The only reason that Neesika painting princess paint on a boy's face might be harmful is because of the bigotry of others. It wouldn't be because there is something inherently harmful about a boy having his face painted the same way as a lot of the girls.

My sons dressed up as knights and wizards.
My older daughter dressed up as a princess.
(My younger daughter is still a baby and has yet to dress herself up as anything.)

And I'll bet any amount of money somebody on this thread will criticize me for it.

Depends. Did they dress up that way because they wanted to? Or did one of your boys prefer a more "feminine" costume that you denied him because it wasn't for boys? Or did your daughter perhaps prefer to be a knight or a wizard, and you told her those were boy costumes?

My guess is that they chose their own costumes and that those costumes happened to match up with gender norms.

Which really just leaves the question: Would you have allowed one of your sons to dress up as a princess if he wanted to? Would you have allowed your daughter to dress up as a knight or wizard?

One interesting thing I've noticed in today's society is that more parents would probably answer yes to the second question than to the first. Our society has become comfortable with some amount of "gender bending" when it's girls who want to do "boy things". But if a boy wants to wear a dress? People's heads explode!

Are you saying that the only possible reason for a parent to decline to allow his or her son's face to be painted like a princess is bigotry?

I'll say it. If they're letting him get his face painted at all, the only reason to disallow that particular pattern of paint is bigotry. Now, there is a chance that it isn't the parent's own bigotry. They might be legitimizing the bigotry of others. But the core reason is still bigotry.

The irony being that no Conservative in this thread does what you accuse us of doing. Your entire philosophy is one big rotting strawman.

In the spirit of some of your own recent posts:

If you're not someone who imposes strict gender roles on children, why are you getting defensive?

In the spirit of some of your own recent posts:

If you're not someone who imposes strict gender roles on children, why are you getting defensive?

This has been brewing for quite some time, as I'm sure you've noticed.

Of course, you can use reason to determine what is and is not harmful. The only reason that Neesika painting princess paint on a boy's face might be harmful is because of the bigotry of others. It wouldn't be because there is something inherently harmful about a boy having his face painted the same way as a lot of the girls.


Which is a matter of opinion. Someone might very well argue that there IS something harmful about a boy having his face painted in a 'girly' way or that it can lead to something harmful (such as being teased by others.) No matter how strongly you might hold an opinion, it doesn't magically become fact just because you really, really, really believe it.


Depends. Did they dress up that way because they wanted to? Or did one of your boys prefer a more "feminine" costume that you denied him because it wasn't for boys? Or did your daughter perhaps prefer to be a knight or a wizard, and you told her those were boy costumes?

My guess is that they chose their own costumes and that those costumes happened to match up with gender norms.


Correct.


Which really just leaves the question: Would you have allowed one of your sons to dress up as a princess if he wanted to? Would you have allowed your daughter to dress up as a knight or wizard?


That's kind of a weird question in that there are female versions of knights and wizards, (We're into the high fantasy genre) so if she wanted to wear costume armor and a sword, meh. Perhaps rather than a knight we'd dress her as a Valkyrie complete with a winged helmet. I don't think it would ever dawn on my sons to dress like a princess when there are princes.

I know what you're getting at though. You want to see if I'd forbid my sons to wear a dress or my daughter to dress like a male knight. (Perhaps as a prelude to dismissing me as a narrow minded bigot?) My answer is that yes, I'd forbid it because it's simply illogical. My children, when they were young enough to play dress up or wear those costumes to the Renaissance festival were too young to make an issue of some kind of new age 'whatever the hell goes' mentality of sexless humans. The boys would be as mystified if someone suggested they dress as girls as if you'd asked them if they'd like to play baseball with a wet rag and a tape measure. The same goes if you asked my daughter if she'd like to go dressed as a king or prince. It's simply non-sequitur to her.


One interesting thing I've noticed in today's society is that more parents would probably answer yes to the second question than to the first. Our society has become comfortable with some amount of "gender bending" when it's girls who want to do "boy things". But if a boy wants to wear a dress? People's heads explode!


Well then I get points for consistency.


I'll say it. If they're letting him get his face painted at all, the only reason to disallow that particular pattern of paint is bigotry. Now, there is a chance that it isn't the parent's own bigotry. They might be legitimizing the bigotry of others. But the core reason is still bigotry.

That's pretty narrow minded of you.

You know, I know you want to slap me and people of my opinion with the 'bigot' label as if the only reason to do that is because of some kind of fear that it would turn our kids gay or something similarly idiotic. You'd do well to try and gain a little understanding before indulging in this sort of hypocrisy.

The Liberal Mantra: "All beliefs and opinions are equally valuable, and you can believe whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge the moral superiority of our opinions and beliefs."

I know what you're getting at though. You want to see if I'd forbid my sons to wear a dress or my daughter to dress like a male knight. (Perhaps as a prelude to dismissing me as a narrow minded bigot?) My answer is that yes, I'd forbid it because it's simply illogical. My children, when they were young enough to play dress up or wear those costumes to the Renaissance festival were too young to make an issue of some kind of new age 'whatever the hell goes' mentality of sexless humans. The boys would be as mystified if someone suggested they dress as girls as if you'd asked them if they'd like to play baseball with a wet rag and a tape measure. The same goes if you asked my daughter if she'd like to go dressed as a king or prince. It's simply non-sequitur to her.

If you're so confident that your children would not dress outside their gender roles then why would you forbid it?

I know what you're getting at though. You want to see if I'd forbid my sons to wear a dress or my daughter to dress like a male knight. (Perhaps as a prelude to dismissing me as a narrow minded bigot?) My answer is that yes, I'd forbid it because it's simply illogical.

My children do lots of illogical things. Often, they even use their imagination to make up games that have nothing to do with reality. It is very illogical. Should I prevent them from doing this as well?

My children, when they were young enough to play dress up or wear those costumes to the Renaissance festival were too young to make an issue of some kind of new age 'whatever the hell goes' mentality of sexless humans. The boys would be as mystified if someone suggested they dress as girls as if you'd asked them if they'd like to play baseball with a wet rag and a tape measure. The same goes if you asked my daughter if she'd like to go dressed as a king or prince. It's simply non-sequitur to her.

It would only be a non-sequitur to her if she has already internalised social gender roles. See, you are making the assumption that your children automatically see society's gender roles as logical. I don't think you actually have children, to be honest, as even the stupidest parent must accept the obvious fact that kids are not inherently logical and they don't automatically accept society's gender roles as such.

The Liberal Mantra: "All beliefs and opinions are equally valuable, and you can believe whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge the moral superiority of our opinions and beliefs."

That's funny that you believe that 'liberals' believe that.

Which is a matter of opinion. Someone might very well argue that there IS something harmful about a boy having his face painted in a 'girly' way or that it can lead to something harmful (such as being teased by others.) No matter how strongly you might hold an opinion, it doesn't magically become fact just because you really, really, really believe it.

Someone could try to argue that there is something inherently harmful about butterfly wings and glitter on a boy's face, but not on a girl's, but they'd be hard pressed to justify such a ridiculous argument.

And the being teased by others is a matter of bigotry.


I know what you're getting at though. You want to see if I'd forbid my sons to wear a dress or my daughter to dress like a male knight. (Perhaps as a prelude to dismissing me as a narrow minded bigot?) My answer is that yes, I'd forbid it because it's simply illogical.

How is it inherently any more illogical for a boy to wear a dress than for a girl to do so?

Why is it illogical for a girl to dress up as a male knight?

In the case of a costume, the whole point is dress up - pretending to be something you are not. A girl who dresses up as a princess isn't actually a princess. Neither is a boy who does so. Same goes for knights.

Suppose your daughter really likes a male superhero. Why shouldn't she dress up as that superhero, same as her brothers might? It's all pretend anyways.

What makes pretending to be the opposite sex somehow so disturbing that it must be forbidden?

Meanwhile, you claimed above that you don't do what Neesika was talking about. Your answer here demonstrates that the only reason you don't do it is that your children haven't pushed your boundaries. If they happened to fall outside of your preconceived gender norms, you would do exactly what Neesika is talking about.

My children, when they were young enough to play dress up or wear those costumes to the Renaissance festival were too young to make an issue of some kind of new age 'whatever the hell goes' mentality of sexless humans.

Or, more likely, they just weren't interested in doing so. They fit well enough into gender norms that they saw no reason to challenge it.

It has nothing to do with new age or sexless humans or anything like that. It has to do with the particular preferences of a particular child.

The boys would be as mystified if someone suggested they dress as girls as if you'd asked them if they'd like to play baseball with a wet rag and a tape measure. The same goes if you asked my daughter if she'd like to go dressed as a king or prince. It's simply non-sequitur to her.

But does that mean it is the same for all children? That no boys would ever want to dress as girls and no girls would ever want to dress as a king or a prince?

That's pretty narrow minded of you.

Not at all. I'm just recognizing it for what it is.

You know, I know you want to slap me and people of my opinion with the 'bigot' label as if the only reason to do that is because of some kind of fear that it would turn our kids gay or something similarly idiotic. You'd do well to try and gain a little understanding before indulging in this sort of hypocrisy.

Homophobia isn't the only form of bigotry. In this case, I'd say that sexism is a more appropriate label. You fear that your children might not fit into whatever molds you have decided are right for boys or girls, respectively. They might *gasp* be individuals with their own preferences that may or may not match your preconceived notions! And if your children don't happen to fit that mold, you'll just try and shove them into it. None of this nonsense about your children actually being themselves.

If you're so confident that your children would not dress outside their gender roles then why would you forbid it?

This it the whole problem with enforced gender roles. If they're so obvious and inherent, why would someone feel the need to enforce them?

If they were actually inherent, nobody would need to enforce them. We'd all just fit in! If they were so obvious, they wouldn't be culture-specific. And a little boy would never have to ask, "Why can Sally wear that outfit when I can't?"

If you're so confident that your children would not dress outside their gender roles then why would you forbid it?

That question is non-sequitur, as it's never come up. 3 of my 4 kids are beyond the age where they played dress-up so the hypothetical has passed.

My children do lots of illogical things. Often, they even use their imagination to make up games that have nothing to do with reality. It is very illogical. Should I prevent them from doing this as well?

I doubt what your kids do is illogical to them. Just like what I said about mine.

See the difference?

Someone could try to argue that there is something inherently harmful about butterfly wings and glitter on a boy's face, but not on a girl's, but they'd be hard pressed to justify such a ridiculous argument.

And what makes that argument so ridiculous? Are we supposed to simply accept your opinions as a given and proceed from there?

(Although this may not be a very good example. In a high fantasy setting, such a configuration may well be possible without gender bending. ;) )


And the being teased by others is a matter of bigotry.


I rather think it has more to do with the inherent tendency of some kids to seek out difference in others and use them as an excuse to attack them.

But don't let me stand in the way of you and your quick-draw label gun.


It would only be a non-sequitur to her if she has already internalised social gender roles. See, you are making the assumption that your children automatically see society's gender roles as logical. I don't think you actually have children, to be honest, as even the stupidest parent must accept the obvious fact that kids are not inherently logical and they don't automatically accept society's gender roles as such.


Okie doke.


How is it inherently any more illogical for a boy to wear a dress than for a girl to do so?
Why is it illogical for a girl to dress up as a male knight?


Be careful here. Your question is much too general. Suppose something like that were required within the context of a stage production... Then I wouldn't object. It's theater. It's explicitly taking on the persona of a character.

In Dungeons & Dragons or EverQuestII my sons occasionally play female characters, as I do.

Those are examples of them being at a certain level of maturity, knowing who they are, and roleplaying it.

In the case of my kids, they dressed as themselves but in a different time period. See the difference? And those developing years are the time when they lay the foundation for who they are and who they will become. As a parent, my job is to guide them until they're old enough to fly solo in that.


In the case of a costume, the whole point is dress up - pretending to be something you are not. A girl who dresses up as a princess isn't actually a princess. Neither is a boy who does so. Same goes for knights.

Suppose your daughter really likes a male superhero. Why shouldn't she dress up as that superhero, same as her brothers might? It's all pretend anyways.

What makes pretending to be the opposite sex somehow so disturbing that it must be forbidden?


As I said, it depends on the context.



Meanwhile, you claimed above that you don't do what Neesika was talking about. Your answer here demonstrates that the only reason you don't do it is that your children haven't pushed your boundaries. If they happened to fall outside of your preconceived gender norms, you would do exactly what Neesika is talking about.


What, going around imposing my beliefs on others? I don't.

But yes, I do guide my kids, which is my responsibility as a parent. But what I do NOT do, is presume to meddle with how other people raise theirs, nor do I go around bashing them if they make choices different form mine.

Before you retort, take a moment and ask yourself: As strong as you know I am in my opinions and perspectives, when have you EVER seen me presume to tell others that they should believe what I do?


Or, more likely, they just weren't interested in doing so. They fit well enough into gender norms that they saw no reason to challenge it.

It has nothing to do with new age or sexless humans or anything like that. It has to do with the particular preferences of a particular child.


The problem is this: Y'all want to act as if no differences exist between males and females. As if somehow it's a bad thing that they're different. I'm one of those who celebrates and appreciates the difference between male and female, and I believe that we are stronger together than the sum of our parts. I believe that men and women (boys and girls) are equal but not equivalent. If you don't understand what that means I'd be more than happy to elaborate.

And yes I teach my kids that.


But does that mean it is the same for all children? That no boys would ever want to dress as girls and no girls would ever want to dress as a king or a prince?


I'm sure they do. I can only deal with my own. For other kids, it's up to their parents to decide how to approach it.


Not at all. I'm just recognizing it for what it is.


Uh-huh. So you have no actual response just "It is because I said so."


Homophobia isn't the only form of bigotry. In this case, I'd say that sexism is a more appropriate label. You fear that your children might not fit into whatever molds you have decided are right for boys or girls, respectively. They might *gasp* be individuals with their own preferences that may or may not match your preconceived notions! And if your children don't happen to fit that mold, you'll just try and shove them into it". None of this nonsense about your children actually being themselves.

Mmm more labels. At this point I'm making a game of it to see how many labels I can accumulate over the course of this thread.

So your logic is: If my kids were to want to dress up as the opposite sex, which never happened, and I stopped them, which I never had to do, then that must mean that they can't be themselves. Interesting. So your entire self identity is based on the sex of the clothes you wear... That's an unbelievably narrow-minded thing to say. Luckily, my children's personalities are far more well developed than that and their self-identity is quite healthy and happy, thank you.

When you've actually met my kids and have even a modicum of actual knowledge of them, you may speak to that point. Until that day, you know squat.


That's funny that you believe that 'liberals' believe that.

I absolutely do. And every person who has taken issue with what I said thus far has re-iterated it, with Neesika being the poster child.

Y'all just can't stand that not only do I not agree with your stand on this, I am neither sorry nor apologetic about it.

You guys accuse Conservatives and Christians of being judgmental, yet how many of you have already presumed to judge me and slap labels? You accuse Christians of pushing their beliefs on others and yet you've already come out and said that I'm a bigot and that my kids have no self-identity and all because I do not share your beliefs on something as trivial as how a child gets their face painted or what sort of costume I'd let them wear.

Ironic. I've already indicated in past that if one of my kids were to come up and tell me he or she was gay, that I'd still love them and continue to be a parent to them, yet I wonder how some of you would react if one of your kids were to come out as, say, a Rush Limbaugh fan or a Mormon. I bet they'd get more grief from you than a gay child of mine would.

So don't worry, y'all are not getting under my skin. I'm quite comfortable with how I raise my kids and I have nothing to apologize for. I'm looking forward to continuing this discussion if for no other reason than you guys keep generously providing me with ammo for times when I say things like this:

You guys: "All beliefs and opinions are equally valuable, and you can believe whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge the moral superiority of our opinions and beliefs."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Article of Faith #11:"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

And you call us judgmental and narrow. Nice. :)

The problem is this: Y'all want to act as if no differences exist between males and females. As if somehow it's a bad thing that they're different. I'm one of those who celebrates and appreciates the difference between male and female, and I believe that we are stronger together than the sum of our parts. I believe that men and women (boys and girls) are equal but not equivalent. If you don't understand what that means I'd be more than happy to elaborate.

I have seen you make this argument more than once. Those of us who are opposed to enforcing gender roles would, according to you, like to believe there are no differences between men and women. It is true that there are some people who feel that way, and I won't speak for them.

For myself, I readily recognize the differences between the male and female gender. They are chromosomal, physical, chemical, etc. Many differences exist, and they are neither inherently good or bad--they just are.

What is curious to me is the way in which you designate random cultural practices as inherent differences between men and women, as if these were the products of biology. You stated that your sons are not and would not be interested in wearing dresses because that is "illogical" to them--it is not a part of their gender, presumably.

Yet in many different cultures, and in the past of our own, boys have worn dresses (we have plenty of pictures of my great grandfathers and such dressed in frilly things as babies that were quite the norm in the 19th century). What people wear depends on the society in which they live. In a society where a dress is the normal garment for a man, it would not be at all surprising to find a man in a dress.

As I've said, I'm quite willing to agree that there are differences between genders. Sadly, there are no urinals in women's bathrooms because we lack the physical equipment to make use of them, and putting them in there would be a waste of time and space. Creating a line of nursing bras for men would be equally impractical since it is a physical impossibility (usually--I never rule anything out) for men to breastfeed. These are inherent differences between men and women. What form of cloth they use to protect themselves from the elements is hardly biologically determined.

As I've said, I'm quite willing to agree that there are differences between genders. Sadly, there are no urinals in women's bathrooms because we lack the physical equipment to make use of them, and putting them in there would be a waste of time and space. Creating a line of nursing bras for men would be equally impractical since it is a physical impossibility (usually--I never rule anything out) for men to breastfeed. These are inherent differences between men and women. What form of cloth they use to protect themselves from the elements is hardly biologically determined.
Actually men can breastfeed. It's just ... it takes coaxing.

I want to know (and it's not in the scope of the thread) why aren't there changing tables in the mens room? It annoys me. Men often (or at least around here) take their infant children in public without the mother, how are they supposed to accomodate diapering?

Who makes that judgment?

Who makes what judgment?

I think my standard is perfectly clear: parents have the right to exercise their authority to protect their children from harm, but not to impose their conception of what the child should be or become.

If you mean "who decides which is which"... we all do, and act (and criticize) accordingly. Just like with most standards.

Are you saying that the only possible reason for a parent to decline to allow his or her son's face to be painted like a princess is bigotry?

"Only possible" is very broad. I'm not inclined to prove a negative. If you're willing to give an alternative line of reasoning, I'm willing to listen.

"Only possible" is very broad. I'm not inclined to prove a negative. If you're willing to give an alternative line of reasoning, I'm willing to listen.

I can think of some reasons not to let them get their face painted at all. I'm struggling with what would cause you to forbid certain subject matter though....although I might forbid anything racist painted on my kids face... even if they really wanted it.

My agenda is simple; I just don't like QUEERS. Any guy who looks at another guy's hairy ass and says "I gotta get me some of that" obviously has a couple of screws loose and is not someone I want to hang around with.

With love,
Your friendly neighborhood ugly, small-minded fool (I'll wear that on my chest as a badge of honor among normal people)

Huh. Good to know that over half of the population has a "couple of screws loose," including myself, because I have certainly fancied some masculine ass. So, are you a lesbian or are you completely celibate?

The problem is this: Y'all want to act as if no differences exist between males and females.

Not at all.

The thing is, I couldn't really care less about the differences "between males and females." Undoubtedly they exist--including and beyond the reproductive. But they don't matter to me.

What I care about are the differences between individuals. And I try to respect people as individuals, too--individuals with the right to determine for themselves how to behave, how to identify themselves, how to live their lives. Thinking of them as being drafted into a class--"male", "female"--at birth, with the associated list of personality and behavioral traits, is not to respect and celebrate difference, but to smother and obscure it.

Ironic. I've already indicated in past that if one of my kids were to come up and tell me he or she was gay, that I'd still love them and continue to be a parent to them,

How generous of you. :rolleyes:

I mean, in fairness, I guess it's more than some people would do, but that's setting a very low standard.

yet I wonder how some of you would react if one of your kids were to come out as, say, a Rush Limbaugh fan or a Mormon. I bet they'd get more grief from you than a gay child of mine would.

Tolerance isn't blind. Not all choices are equivalent.

If a child of mine became a Rush Limbaugh fan or a Mormon, I wouldn't punish him or her, and I certainly wouldn't stop loving them or being a parent to them. But I might argue with them with the intent of convincing them--well, I certainly would in the Rush Limbaugh case, because he's a vile racist demagogue, and probably would in the Mormon case if the conversion came complete with a religious opposition to, say, homosexuality and abortion, because the moral arguments there are horrendous.

As far as sexual orientation and gender expression goes, though, there's no moral or rational content there. There's nothing inherently irrational or wrong about pursuing relationships and having sex with the people with whom a person is attracted. There's nothing inherently irrational or wrong about going with or breaking from gender norms. I wouldn't challenge any such choice on the part of my children.

There's no double standard here, because they're different circumstances. Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

You guys: "All beliefs and opinions are equally valuable,

What nonsense. I doubt any of us have made this claim.

and you can believe whatever you want,

Sure, we all have the right to freedom of conscience, but this has nothing to do with the rationality or soundness or moral legitimacy of our beliefs.

And what makes that argument so ridiculous? Are we supposed to simply accept your opinions as a given and proceed from there?

The argument is ridiculous because there's nothing to back it up. It's equivalent to me arguing that pants are inherently harmful to women and then refusing to give any rational reason for that statement.

If glitter was normally a masculine thing and army paint was normally a feminine one, those same people would argue that army paint was inherently harmful to the boy, despite the fact that nothing biological would have changed.

The "harm" lies, not in anything inherent, but in their own preconceived notions of what the boy "should" like.

I rather think it has more to do with the inherent tendency of some kids to seek out difference in others and use them as an excuse to attack them.

But don't let me stand in the way of you and your quick-draw label gun.

Hmmmm....singling people out just because they're different.....I wonder what we call that?

Sort of how they might make fun of the only black kid in the class? Or the lone Mormon?

Be careful here. Your question is much too general. Suppose something like that were required within the context of a stage production... Then I wouldn't object. It's theater. It's explicitly taking on the persona of a character.

Sort of like pretending to be royalty or a wizard or a knight in fantasy world?

In Dungeons & Dragons or EverQuestII my sons occasionally play female characters, as I do.

Those are examples of them being at a certain level of maturity, knowing who they are, and roleplaying it.

You can play pretend at any age - any level of maturity. What changes is the way we do it. I don't see why pretending to be a different gender takes any more maturity than pretending to be anything else you're not.

In the case of my kids, they dressed as themselves but in a different time period. See the difference? And those developing years are the time when they lay the foundation for who they are and who they will become. As a parent, my job is to guide them until they're old enough to fly solo in that.

I don't really see the difference. It's all play-acting. In the latter case, they are creating a character based on a fantasy conception of a different time period. Unless you are a king and your sons practice magic and/or run around in armor fighting bad guys and dragons? It's all play-acting, one way or the other.

Meanwhile, you reveal the fact that you do feel the need to enforce strict gender roles. Apparently, it is your job as a parent to make sure your children learn to be whatever you think a girl or boy should be. They might not become masculine or feminine enough for you if you let them go with their own preferences.

I wonder, if you have to guide them into gender roles, how can you argue that such gender roles are natural or necessary? If they really were natural, wouldn't children just fall into them, rather than having to be taught differently based on what genitalia they have?

What, going around imposing my beliefs on others? I don't.

Neesika talked about parents who try to enforce strict gender roles on their children. According to you, doing that is part of your job as a parent.

But yes, I do guide my kids, which is my responsibility as a parent. But what I do NOT do, is presume to meddle with how other people raise theirs, nor do I go around bashing them if they make choices different form mine.

Really? You've never in your entire life criticized the way another parent raised his children? You've never talked about a parent who did something that you completely disagreed with and perhaps even saw as harmful?

You may not like Neesika's particular tone, but that's all she's doing here - criticizing those who impose strict gender roles on their children, a form of parenting that she finds to be harmful.

Before you retort, take a moment and ask yourself: As strong as you know I am in my opinions and perspectives, when have you EVER seen me presume to tell others that they should believe what I do?

Hmmm, when was the last abortion thread....?

And didn't you say that a boy wanting to wear a dress or a girl wanting to dress as a male character would be "illogical"? That does imply that you think the only possible conclusion is the one you've come to.

The problem is this: Y'all want to act as if no differences exist between males and females. As if somehow it's a bad thing that they're different.

Not at all. Of course there are differences.

What we are saying is that the differences between individuals are more important than the - generally statistical - differences between men and women as a whole. We are saying that people - including children - should be treated as individuals instead of being treated as if they are - or must be - a statistically average member of their sex.

Celebrating your child as an individual is more important than celebrating gender differences that may or may not apply to them. Suppose a little girl can't stand dolls, hates dresses, and wants to play with army men. Is she any less worthy of celebration than a little girl who better meets the statistical norm? Suppose a little boy likes unicorns and glitter, wants to paint his nails, and wants to play with dolls. Does that make him less worthy of celebration than a more "masculine" boy?

That, and whatever innate differences there are between men and women are going to show up without you pushing them. If you have to make someone fit a certain role, it isn't because you are celebrating something natural. It's because you've imposed that role on them.

I'm sure they do. I can only deal with my own. For other kids, it's up to their parents to decide how to approach it.

And, as you've said, you would forbid it on the basis of your particular perception of what boys and girls should do. The fact that you didn't "need" to do so was simply luck on your part, I suppose.

Mmm more labels. At this point I'm making a game of it to see how many labels I can accumulate over the course of this thread.

If you'd like to go back through the thread and find every adjective ascribed to you or any of your actions, be my guest. If you also want to call them all "labels" as if there's something particularly bad about that word, have fun with that as well.

So your logic is: If my kids were to want to dress up as the opposite sex, which never happened, and I stopped them, which I never had to do, then that must mean that they can't be themselves.

More like: If your children didn't fit your preconceived gender notions, and you tried to force them to fit your mold, that would mean they couldn't be themselves.

There are all sorts of examples. Suppose your daughter liked math and science, but you told her that math and science were for boys and that she should pay more attention to literature and art instead. Suppose your son really wanted to take dance classes, but you told him that was for girls and that he should take karate instead. (not saying these are opinions you necessarily hold, but much like modes of dress, they are typical "masculine" and "feminine" things - and they are things that parents do to their children)

And so on. They're all examples of the same thing - pushing children into a mold that their own interests don't actually fit into because of your own ideas of what having their particular genitalia should entail.

Interesting. So your entire self identity is based on the sex of the clothes you wear... That's an unbelievably narrow-minded thing to say. Luckily, my children's personalities are far more well developed than that and their self-identity is quite healthy and happy, thank you.

What a nice straw man you've built there. You got any more you'd like to burn? The clothing example is just that - an example.

In truth, the fact that you think it would be so damaging to let your children dress as the opposite sex makes it clear that you attach a great deal of self-identity to gender norms in clothing. It is your job as a parent, you said, to guide them in becoming the person they will later be and therefore you could not let them dress as the opposite sex.

When you've actually met my kids and have even a modicum of actual knowledge of them, you may speak to that point. Until that day, you know squat.

I'm not talking about your children in particular. I'm talking your attitude towards them. We could be talking about the imaginary third son you don't even have. Or the preferences that your youngest daughter has yet to develop. We could have this discussion if you didn't even have children.

something as trivial as how a child gets their face painted or what sort of costume I'd let them wear.

If it's so trivial, why would you feel the need to impose rules about it?

In truth, we're the ones saying it is trivial. So trivial, in fact, that parents shouldn't worry about it if their children don't pick the norm.

You, on the other hand, think it is such a big deal that you would feel the need to forbid non-standard choices. It's such a big deal that the very foundation of the adults your children will become would be shaken if you didn't impose gender norms upon them.

And you call us judgmental and narrow. Nice. :)

This whole "ZOMG! You're intolerant of intolerance!" thing gets a little old. Apparently, thinking that ethnic/gender/etc. roles shouldn't be pushed on people - even children (who are, by the way, people) - makes one narrow minded. Apparently, treating people as individuals instead of assuming that they are - and must be - "typical" members of their sex/ethnicity/etc. is really close-minded. Yup.

You guys: "All beliefs and opinions are equally valuable, and you can believe whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge the moral superiority of our opinions and beliefs."

Luckily, I've never said anything like that.

Meanwhile, no one is arguing that you have to acknowledge the moral superiority of anything. You are expressing your opinion. Others are expressing theirs. You can believe what you want. You can impose what you want on your children.

And, in the same vein, we can think you're dead wrong.

I want to know (and it's not in the scope of the thread) why aren't there changing tables in the mens room? It annoys me. Men often (or at least around here) take their infant children in public without the mother, how are they supposed to accomodate diapering?

Being qualified to answer this question by virtue of having a penis, there are changing tables in the men's room, at least where I live.

Being qualified to answer this question by virtue of having a penis, there are changing tables in the men's room, at least where I live.

Same here.

Being qualified to answer this question by virtue of having a penis, there are changing tables in the men's room, at least where I live.

Ditto.

Actually men can breastfeed. It's just ... it takes coaxing.

Good thing I said I don't rule anything out! Who says you don't learn anything on internet forums? I'm really curious about this now, too.

I want to know (and it's not in the scope of the thread) why aren't there changing tables in the mens room? It annoys me. Men often (or at least around here) take their infant children in public without the mother, how are they supposed to accomodate diapering?

Looks like they are in some places, judging by responses. I haven't heard of them, but I haven't been in a men's restroom since I was a kid and did not care where I went so long as it had a toilet, so I wouldn't really know. They certainly should, though. I mean, unless one of the celebrated differences between men and women is that men can't fix a diaper, and I know plenty of the men of NSG will attest otherwise.

Looks like they are in some places, judging by responses. I haven't heard of them, but I haven't been in a men's restroom since I was a kid and did not care where I went so long as it had a toilet, so I wouldn't really know. They certainly should, though. I mean, unless one of the celebrated differences between men and women is that men can't fix a diaper, and I know plenty of the men of NSG will attest otherwise.

I think there's a trend towards putting them in all bathrooms, but there are still hold outs.

I worked in a restaurant once where we got a scathing review from a man who was irate that we were so backwards that we didn't have a changing table in the men's room. Actually, we did. It was in the handicapped stall. I guess he just didn't look very hard.

I think there's a trend towards putting them in all bathrooms, but there are still hold outs.

I worked in a restaurant once where we got a scathing review from a man who was irate that we were so backwards that we didn't have a changing table in the men's room. Actually, we did. It was in the handicapped stall. I guess he just didn't look very hard.

They usually are, if there isn't room near the sinks or an outer room.

I hope he had a baby with him. Otherwise that's just awkward.

They usually are, if there isn't room near the sinks or an outer room.

I hope he had a baby with him. Otherwise that's just awkward.

I guess he did. He wasn't at one of my tables. I just saw the review card he filled out. It was unfortunate that he only wrote the card and didn't actually say anything to anyone, though. We would have told him where it was.

I really hope a baby didn't go without being changed because of it.

I guess he did. He wasn't at one of my tables. I just saw the review card he filled out. It was unfortunate that he only wrote the card and didn't actually say anything to anyone, though. We would have told him where it was.

I really hope a baby didn't go without being changed because of it.

Maybe he just went into the ladies' bathroom? It does seem bizarre that he would be so worked up over it he would rant in a comment card, but he wouldn't actually ask anyone about it.

Someone could try to argue that there is something inherently harmful about butterfly wings and glitter on a boy's face, but not on a girl's, but they'd be hard pressed to justify such a ridiculous argument.

And the being teased by others is a matter of bigotry.

But you shouldn't leave your son open to torment and ridicule just to prove your point.

How is it inherently any more illogical for a boy to wear a dress than for a girl to do so?

Why is it illogical for a girl to dress up as a male knight?

Well it wouldn't because then they are dressing up as Joan d'Arc ;)

Of course females aren't knights i.e they wouldn't be addressed as Sir they would be addressed as Dame which is of the same equal level and title.

I can think of some reasons not to let them get their face painted at all. I'm struggling with what would cause you to forbid certain subject matter though....although I might forbid anything racist painted on my kids face... even if they really wanted it.

While some people have said they do, I have usually seen a specific changing room away from the toilets. Of course it seems a lot of mothers are still the ones going in, I remember one day I took my son in a few years ago and the looks I got for being a male going into the changing room "how dare I" I felt like an outcast that day.

I worked in a restaurant once where we got a scathing review from a man who was irate that we were so backwards that we didn't have a changing table in the men's room. Actually, we did. It was in the handicapped stall. I guess he just didn't look very hard.

<insert male joke here>

My agenda is, if I had to pick, to call out passing on blame for your own dickishness.

The basis of this is someone taking advantage of a dick situation by saying, "If I didn't, someone else would." See, but someone else didn't-you did. It's not that amorphous 'other' person whose to blame, you're that other person.

It's a kind of breed of asshole that assumes everyone else is just as much an asshole as you are but are just 'faking it,' and you're the one keeping it 'real.' It can't be that you're a self centered dickwad that can't see beyond your own motivations and is socially stunted, no, everyone else is just faking it.

Fuck those bastards, that's my agenda.

I have seen you make this argument more than once. Those of us who are opposed to enforcing gender roles would, according to you, like to believe there are no differences between men and women. It is true that there are some people who feel that way, and I won't speak for them.

For myself, I readily recognize the differences between the male and female gender. They are chromosomal, physical, chemical, etc. Many differences exist, and they are neither inherently good or bad--they just are.

What is curious to me is the way in which you designate random cultural practices as inherent differences between men and women, as if these were the products of biology. You stated that your sons are not and would not be interested in wearing dresses because that is "illogical" to them--it is not a part of their gender, presumably.

Yet in many different cultures, and in the past of our own, boys have worn dresses (we have plenty of pictures of my great grandfathers and such dressed in frilly things as babies that were quite the norm in the 19th century). What people wear depends on the society in which they live. In a society where a dress is the normal garment for a man, it would not be at all surprising to find a man in a dress.

As I've said, I'm quite willing to agree that there are differences between genders. Sadly, there are no urinals in women's bathrooms because we lack the physical equipment to make use of them, and putting them in there would be a waste of time and space. Creating a line of nursing bras for men would be equally impractical since it is a physical impossibility (usually--I never rule anything out) for men to breastfeed. These are inherent differences between men and women. What form of cloth they use to protect themselves from the elements is hardly biologically determined.

I think you and I agree more than we disagree, because there's not a while lot you said that I'd disagree with.

And you're right that clothing is a cultural, not necessarily biological thing.

That's why when my boys choose a costume, they want to choose from costumes that enable them to express themselves from the available 'male' options for the culture at hand.

To me, this is the most natural thing in the world and I find it amazing (and more than a little amusing) that I'm expected to defend that.

Who makes what judgment?

I think my standard is perfectly clear: parents have the right to exercise their authority to protect their children from harm, but not to impose their conception of what the child should be or become.

If you mean "who decides which is which"... we all do, and act (and criticize) accordingly. Just like with most standards.


But here's the thing, you're taking an opinion and setting it as a baseline, then expecting others to defend their choices when they differ from that baseline.

That's my issue with this. Everybody is trying to skin me alive for failing to adhere to their OPINION of what's right and wrong as if their opinion were fact.


"Only possible" is very broad. I'm not inclined to prove a negative. If you're willing to give an alternative line of reasoning, I'm willing to listen.

It is very broad indeed, yet some of the others here are asserting exactly that.

But here's the thing, you're taking an opinion and setting it as a baseline, then expecting others to defend their choices when they differ from that baseline.

No, I expect others to defend their choices, period, at least if they themselves have brought them up on a discussion forum. I think we should all be concerned with justifying our actions, especially when they concern another person.

I provided a standard. There are two ways you can defend your choices: you can argue that they fit that standard, or you can argue that my standard is a bad one.

But you have to advance an actual argument. Saying "It's just your opinion!" isn't an argument; anything I say is my "opinion", but that doesn't mean it isn't true or right.

It is very broad indeed, yet some of the others here are asserting exactly that.

So are you just going to dodge again?

Others "are asserting exactly that" because the clearest, and probably the most common, line of reasoning that would prohibit it is bigoted. If you want to suggest that other lines of reasoning may not be bigoted, then you should actually provide some alternatives.

Not at all.

The thing is, I couldn't really care less about the differences "between males and females." Undoubtedly they exist--including and beyond the reproductive. But they don't matter to me.

What I care about are the differences between individuals. And I try to respect people as individuals, too--individuals with the right to determine for themselves how to behave, how to identify themselves, how to live their lives. Thinking of them as being drafted into a class--"male", "female"--at birth, with the associated list of personality and behavioral traits, is not to respect and celebrate difference, but to smother and obscure it.


This is where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree because nobody's mind is going to be changed on this point. In my view, male and female are defining characteristics of any person and frankly, I find gender bending offensive.

And this is a good time to point out something that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned. Homosexuality =/= gender bending per se. My brother is gay, and is more masculine than most of my straight male friends. Crossdressing =/= homosexuality and I know this, yet some of the people debating this point have equated the two.


How generous of you. :rolleyes:

I mean, in fairness, I guess it's more than some people would do, but that's setting a very low standard.


See, when you say "How generous of you." I'm forced to wonder what, exactly, would be satisfactory to you. As you said yourself it's better than some others, but given that I've made no secret of my strict moral philosophy and religion, I fail to understand why you felt the need to react with sarcasm, rather than something a little more positive given how many people we've all known who would disown their child instantly for such a thing.


Tolerance isn't blind. Not all choices are equivalent.

If a child of mine became a Rush Limbaugh fan or a Mormon, I wouldn't punish him or her, and I certainly wouldn't stop loving them or being a parent to them. But I might argue with them with the intent of convincing them--well, I certainly would in the Rush Limbaugh case, because he's a vile racist demagogue, and probably would in the Mormon case if the conversion came complete with a religious opposition to, say, homosexuality and abortion, because the moral arguments there are horrendous.


Well there you go. You've just admitted that you'd be less tolerant than I would. How does it feel? Still want to criticize me?


As far as sexual orientation and gender expression goes, though, there's no moral or rational content there. There's nothing inherently irrational or wrong about pursuing relationships and having sex with the people with whom a person is attracted. There's nothing inherently irrational or wrong about going with or breaking from gender norms. I wouldn't challenge any such choice on the part of my children.

There's no double standard here, because they're different circumstances. Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy.


Of course it's a double standard. It seems to me that you want to rationalize your own intolerance on the basis that your hypothetical child would make a choice in becoming a Limbaugh fan or a Mormon. That carries echoes of the very argument a lot of those who'd disown their children for being gay use to justify it. Is it really true? Doesn't matter. Either way you're saying that your support and acceptance are conditional upon your kids living the way you want them to, and that their choices aren't really their own to make without you at least taking a crack at them.


What nonsense. I doubt any of us have made this claim.


So not all beliefs are equal?


Sure, we all have the right to freedom of conscience, but this has nothing to do with the rationality or soundness or moral legitimacy of our beliefs.

But who makes the call?

This is exactly why all beliefs must be equally respected. Because there is no universally acknowledged authority to make the call of which are better than which.

No, I expect others to defend their choices, period, at least if they themselves have brought them up on a discussion forum. I think we should all be concerned with justifying our actions, especially when they concern another person.


But I owe you no justification. People are free to post their view and opinions without obligation to support them in a way that you would accept. Know why? because nobody's mind is gonna get changed on here regardless of how well supported their view is.

I don't see people on your side of the argument lining up to explain to me the rationale behind their views. All I see is "Everybody has rights and and sexual identity is fluid and you're wrong."

Somebody, prove it.


I provided a standard. There are two ways you can defend your choices: you can argue that they fit that standard, or you can argue that my standard is a bad one.

But you have to advance an actual argument. Saying "It's just your opinion!" isn't an argument; anything I say is my "opinion", but that doesn't mean it isn't true or right.


Doesn't mean it is true or right, either. I think your standard is a bad one because I have yet to see a compelling argument that says somehow society is a better place when 'gender bending' is the norm (or even healthy).


So are you just going to dodge again?

Others "are asserting exactly that" because the clearest, and probably the most common, line of reasoning that would prohibit it is bigoted. If you want to suggest that other lines of reasoning may not be bigoted, then you should actually provide some alternatives.

Actually it's not a line of reasoning so much as a bunch of people who, at best, share an opinion and at worst are victims of groupthink mentality.

How is that a dodge? I'm not going to answer the same questions over and over. Just read the thread.

But I owe you no justification. People are free to post their view and opinions without obligation to support them in a way that you would accept. Know why? because nobody's mind is gonna get changed on here regardless of how well supported their view is.


I don't want to distract from this debate, but the point you just made is plain wrong.
It's true, not every poster has had their opinions changed about everything, but posters here HAVE changed their mind on certain issues after a long debate in which views have been proposed, defended and justified, and you of all people ought to know that very well.

So, posting something you KNOW is going to be attacked, and then avoid the debate by claiming that "it's just an opinion, and I don't have to defend it" is extremely insincere. If you post it here, you have to accept the criticism. If you don't feel the criticism is justified, you have to debate.
If you don't want to do that, don't post.

But who makes the call?

This is exactly why all beliefs must be equally respected. Because there is no universally acknowledged authority to make the call of which are better than which.

But there is. It's existed for as long as mankind has existed, and has best been put into words in the famous "Golden Rule".

So, posting something you KNOW is going to be attacked, and then avoid the debate by claiming that "it's just an opinion, and I don't have to defend it" is extremely insincere. If you post it here, you have to accept the criticism. If you don't feel the criticism is justified, you have to debate.
If you don't want to do that, don't post.
Well, no, you don't owe anyone justification. Justification of opinions is for people who want to be taken seriously.

Well, no, you don't owe anyone justification. Justification of opinions is for people who want to be taken seriously.

Well, true, yes, ok, that was sort of implied... :cool:

The argument is ridiculous because there's nothing that I would accept to back it up. It's equivalent to me arguing that pants are inherently harmful to women and then refusing to give any rational reason for that statement.

Fixed.


If glitter was normally a masculine thing and army paint was normally a feminine one, those same people would argue that army paint was inherently harmful to the boy, despite the fact that nothing biological would have changed.

The "harm" lies, not in anything inherent, but in their own preconceived notions of what the boy "should" like.


A little like your preconceived notions about how a parent ought to manage their kids.


Hmmmm....singling people out just because they're different.....I wonder what we call that?

Sort of how they might make fun of the only black kid in the class? Or the lone Mormon?


Precisely.


Sort of like pretending to be royalty or a wizard or a knight in fantasy world?


Please please don't let this discussion become so pedantic that I have to describe the difference between theatrical art and self identity.


You can play pretend at any age - any level of maturity. What changes is the way we do it. I don't see why pretending to be a different gender takes any more maturity than pretending to be anything else you're not.


That doesn't surprise me. (Not being snarky. More on that to come.)


I don't really see the difference. It's all play-acting. In the latter case, they are creating a character based on a fantasy conception of a different time period. Unless you are a king and your sons practice magic and/or run around in armor fighting bad guys and dragons? It's all play-acting, one way or the other.

Meanwhile, you reveal the fact that you do feel the need to enforce strict gender roles. Apparently, it is your job as a parent to make sure your children learn to be whatever you think a girl or boy should be. They might not become masculine or feminine enough for you if you let them go with their own preferences.


I love it when you accuse me of strawman arguments while you're stuffing hay into your own army of scarecrows. Because I wouldn't let my young son dress as a princess or my young daughter dress as a man, I'm enforcing 'strict gender roles' and forcing my kids to 'be whatever think a girl or boy should be'.

How about the much simpler truth: Boys are male, girls are female. It's really that simple. If you have to over complicate the situation in order to make your point, then I suggest you re-examine the strength of your point.


I wonder, if you have to guide them into gender roles, how can you argue that such gender roles are natural or necessary? If they really were natural, wouldn't children just fall into them, rather than having to be taught differently based on what genitalia they have?


They did. I didn't have to involve myself in picking the costumes. Remember?

But I was hoping you'd bring this up. There was a study done back in the mid 90s. If I can find a link to it I'll post it for you because I think it was very interesting and you probably would as well. They wanted to see of sexual identity was inborn or cultural so they took a group of kids who had been raised by people who would agree with you, raising them as if they were neither male or female and all that... and put them in a room with two toyboxes. One contained trucks, cars, airplanes, etc... all that stereotypical 'boy' toy stuff. The other box contained dolls, dollhouses, clothing, etc... all that stereotypical 'girl' clothing stuff... and let the kids play with whatever they wanted.

It might surprise you to learn that the boys, through *no* external conditioning, went for the 'boy' toybox and the girls went to the 'girl' toybox.

Bummer, huh?


Neesika talked about parents who try to enforce strict gender roles on their children. According to you, doing that is part of your job as a parent.



Really? You've never in your entire life criticized the way another parent raised his children? You've never talked about a parent who did something that you completely disagreed with and perhaps even saw as harmful?


I said I never told someone how to raise their kids. Your argument is a... what's that called? Oh yeah.. a strawman.

And no, I never once have told someone else how to raise his or her kids, even when I had issues with their approach. In fact, I'm dealing with just such a situation now. I keep hoping my friend will ask me for advice, but unless and until he does, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to poke my nose into it.

Where I come from we call that consistency and respect.


You may not like Neesika's particular tone, but that's all she's doing here - criticizing those who impose strict gender roles on their children, a form of parenting that she finds to be harmful.


Yes, that's all the poor dear is doing, and mean ol' Smiling Frogs And Neo Bretonnia had to come in here and hurt her little feelings by pointing out the obvious.


Hmmm, when was the last abortion thread....?


I call bullshit. I do express my opinions strongly on right and wrong but I defy you to show me where I've told someone how to live their life. Do that, and I'll issue an apology right here on this thread for doing so.


And didn't you say that a boy wanting to wear a dress or a girl wanting to dress as a male character would be "illogical"? That does imply that you think the only possible conclusion is the one you've come to.


That's a pretty narrow way to look at it. So now, any expression of opinion on my part is to be taken as a broad statement on how people should live? Is that how I should interpret similar things that you say? gee, all this time I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just expressing an opinion. Was I wrong to do so?


Not at all. Of course there are differences.

What we [i]are saying is that the differences between individuals are more important than the - generally statistical - differences between men and women as a whole. We are saying that people - including children - should be treated as individuals instead of being treated as if they are - or must be - a statistically average member of their sex.

Celebrating your child as an individual is more important than celebrating gender differences that may or may not apply to them. Suppose a little girl can't stand dolls, hates dresses, and wants to play with army men. Is she any less worthy of celebration than a little girl who better meets the statistical norm? Suppose a little boy likes unicorns and glitter, wants to paint his nails, and wants to play with dolls. Does that make him less worthy of celebration than a more "masculine" boy?


Who said anything about 'statistical average member[s] of their sex'? I don't even know what that is. My daughter plays Unreal Tournament. My sons play Sims2 and have female EverQuest II characters. Is that what the average boy does?

Please stop trying to jam me into some kind of template. Kinda hypocritical considering that's what you're accusing me of doing to my kids.


That, and whatever innate differences there are between men and women are going to show up without you pushing them. If you have to make someone fit a certain role, it isn't because you are celebrating something natural. It's because you've imposed that role on them.


Once again, I've never had to impose anything. I know how much that gets in the way of all these accusations but do please stop. It's a strawman and it's not even a good one.


And, as you've said, you would forbid it on the basis of your particular perception of what boys and girls should do. The fact that you didn't "need" to do so was simply luck on your part, I suppose.


And now you acknowledge it at last, after ignoring it this whole post. Why do you even bother?


If you'd like to go back through the thread and find every adjective ascribed to you or any of your actions, be my guest. If you also want to call them all "labels" as if there's something particularly bad about that word, have fun with that as well.


So you're okay with labeling, then?


More like: If your children didn't fit your preconceived gender notions, and you tried to force them to fit your mold, that would mean they couldn't be themselves.

There are all sorts of examples. Suppose your daughter liked math and science, but you told her that math and science were for boys and that she should pay more attention to literature and art instead. Suppose your son really wanted to take dance classes, but you told him that was for girls and that he should take karate instead. (not saying these are opinions you necessarily hold, but much like modes of dress, they are typical "masculine" and "feminine" things - and they are things that parents do to their children)

And so on. They're all examples of the same thing - pushing children into a mold that their own interests don't actually fit into because of your own ideas of what having their particular genitalia should entail.


So you present a few examples and then admit that they may or may not apply... That's kinda weird because it leaves me wondering what your point is. I mean, I guess you're still trying to cast me into some sort of mold but I did encourage my daughter to take karate, (she wasn't interested) she excels in math (as well she should, she's my child), and if my boys want to learn dance by all means they should. I'm looking to take dancing classes myself because I have 2 left feet and about as much rhythm as a car running on 3 cylinders...

I'm real sorry I don't fit into your classic conservative narrowminded redneck knuckle-dragging sexist mold. I'm not here to make it easy for you to pigeonhole me or people who agree with me.


What a nice straw man you've built there. You got any more you'd like to burn? The clothing example is just that - an example.


And yet that was the only real issue we've been discussing up to that point--clothing and facepaint, and on that basis alone you decided to start questioning the way I raise my kids. No, that's not a strawman. That's you getting caught in an unfounded assumption.


In truth, the fact that you think it would be so damaging to let your children dress as the opposite sex makes it clear that you attach a great deal of self-identity to gender norms in clothing. It is your job as a parent, you said, to guide them in becoming the person they will later be and therefore you could not let them dress as the opposite sex.


Prove me wrong.


I'm not talking about your children in particular. I'm talking your attitude towards them. We could be talking about the imaginary third son you don't even have. Or the preferences that your youngest daughter has yet to develop. We could have this discussion if you didn't even have children.

We could, but we're not. You don't even have kids and I've been a father for over 15 years and you're presuming to know more about parenting than I do. That's what we call 'illusions of grandeur.'


If it's so trivial, why would you feel the need to impose rules about it?


So I should ignore trivialities? Teach me more, O experienced one.


In truth, we're the ones saying it is trivial. So trivial, in fact, that parents shouldn't worry about it if their children don't pick the norm.

You, on the other hand, think it is such a big deal that you would feel the need to forbid non-standard choices. It's such a big deal that the very foundation of the adults your children will become would be shaken if you didn't impose gender norms upon them.


Do you proofread your posts, or do you keep recycling the term "imposing gender norms" deliberately because you think it's going to have some sort of subliminal rhetorical impact?

I wouldn't let my kids cross dress and now I'm "IMPOSING GENDER NORMS" (cue thunderclap) on them... Despite the fact that in *NO* other example you've thrown my way have I adhered to that mold.


This whole "ZOMG! You're intolerant of intolerance!" thing gets a little old. Apparently, thinking that ethnic/gender/etc. roles shouldn't be pushed on people - even children (who are, by the way, people) - makes one narrow minded. Apparently, treating people as individuals instead of assuming that they are - and must be - "typical" members of their sex/ethnicity/etc. is really close-minded. Yup.


Actually it is getting old but you keep right on doing it. What makes you narrow-minded? The idea that you're so unable to see that there are other points of view on this that you're prepared to use name-calling in the most vitriolic way (Yes, I find the word 'bigot' to be vitriolic) and not even acknowledging the possibility of multiple points of view, to which you have admitted!

That, my friend, is the very definition of narrow mindedness. Seeing one point of view and one point of view ONLY.

I see your point of view. I didn't need you to tell me I've known it for years. I simply disagree with it. Can you internalize that? The idea that a person can understand your point completely and still not agree with it?


Luckily, I've never said anything like that.

Meanwhile, no one is arguing that you have to acknowledge the moral superiority of anything. You are expressing your opinion. Others are expressing theirs. You can believe what you want. You can impose what you want on your children.

And, in the same vein, we can think you're dead wrong.

The difference is, I'm not out there calling you names, trashing your beliefs, and taking on a self-righteous stance as a reaction to you. I'm not defending other people's vitriol toward you nor am I justifying my own.. In fact, I'm not even being nasty. So yes, you ARE arguing that I have to acknowledge it because the bottom line of your argument, summed up in one sentence from where I sit is:

"Neo Bretonnia, you are wrong and we are right, because there is only one valid point of view."

Wheras my argument is, and has been:

"I have a different point of view from yours, and thus I am not wrong as I see it, but then neither are you, from your point of view."

This is for both you and Soheran: I haven't gotten into the business of defending the exact reasons for my choices precisely because the point I've been trying to get across is that my reasoning isn't the issue. The issue is that I have a separate point of view form yours. That's all.

I don't want to distract from this debate, but the point you just made is plain wrong.
It's true, not every poster has had their opinions changed about everything, but posters here HAVE changed their mind on certain issues after a long debate in which views have been proposed, defended and justified, and you of all people ought to know that very well.

So, posting something you KNOW is going to be attacked, and then avoid the debate by claiming that "it's just an opinion, and I don't have to defend it" is extremely insincere. If you post it here, you have to accept the criticism. If you don't feel the criticism is justified, you have to debate.
If you don't want to do that, don't post.

But there again, if all I'm arguing is that there's more than one way to look at it, how can I support that in a subjective way that would force someone to draw the conclusion that it is so?

You either believe people can have differing viewpoints on an issue or you don't.

Now, if you want to discuss the whys and wherefores of what would make me cringe at the thought of my son in a dress we can do that after we establish this foundation: "I do not agree with you and that's okay!"

But there is. It's existed for as long as mankind has existed, and has best been put into words in the famous "Golden Rule".

Gawd if only people truly grasped that.

I wonder how many of those attacking me int his thread are honestly doing it because it's what they'd want done to them back. I find it hilarious that I'm in here demanding the same acknowledgment of a right to disagree as everyone else expects and you want to slap ME with the Golden Rule. That's freakin' awesome.

Maybe in a weird way, that's progress.

This is where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree because nobody's mind is going to be changed on this point. In my view, male and female are defining characteristics of any person and frankly, I find gender bending offensive.

Then you're bigoted, and stubborn about your bigotry. Unfortunate.

And this is a good time to point out something that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned. Homosexuality =/= gender bending per se.

Neesika has already clarified that she was being facetious in labeling this "a gay agenda." And homosexuality is inherently a case of gender bending; obviously it doesn't necessarily correlate with other cases of gender bending, but to seek romantic and sexual relationships with people of the same sex is in and of itself a violation of conventional gender roles.

See, when you say "How generous of you." I'm forced to wonder what, exactly, would be satisfactory to you. As you said yourself it's better than some others, but given that I've made no secret of my strict moral philosophy and religion, I fail to understand why you felt the need to react with sarcasm, rather than something a little more positive given how many people we've all known who would disown their child instantly for such a thing.

Because relative standards are appropriate for politics, not for dealing with individuals. I'll welcome Obama's gay rights stances even when they fall short, because they're better than McCain's. But that doesn't mean I'll be quiet if someone I know criticizes same-sex marriage--especially if that person pretends that he or she is a tolerant, unprejudiced person who has no problem with homosexuality.

I'm not going to kneel in thanks because you or anyone else has a better stance than some other people. That's a slavish standard. Go with that reasoning and queer liberation would be stuck in 1968, negotiating with state and local governments to be a little less rigorous in raiding gay bars. My loyalty is not to "better" but to the ideal, to equality and freedom for all, and respect for that ideal is what I expect from people.

So what, specifically, would be satisfactory? Not "tolerance." Tolerance isn't good enough. Moral acceptance, for one--the recognition that no reasonable moral standard can condemn homosexuality. Not this condescending nonsense about "love the sinner, hate the sin", which applies to serial killing, too. Respect--not just for gays and bisexuals as people, but for gays and bisexuals as gay and bisexual people. We should respect criminals as people, too, but we should disrespect and condemn their crimes; such a standard is too lax for something benign and positive, for something that is a dominant feature of people's lives and a crucial part of their achievement of happiness.

Well there you go. You've just admitted that you'd be less tolerant than I would. How does it feel? Still want to criticize me?

It feels fine. Yes, I'm still inclined to criticize you.

You suggest that tolerance of homosexuality is the equivalent of tolerance for a religious or political view, but it is not, because homosexuality and religious and political views are not equivalent. One is morally neutral, the other has the potential of being irrational or morally wrong.

If by "tolerance" you mean the kind of tolerance we should have toward people we don't agree with, then I don't want people to be "tolerant" of homosexuality at all: I want them to come to the clear conclusion of unprejudiced reason on the topic, that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, nothing we should disagree with.

Tolerance, in that sense, is something we do to protect freedom and social peace. It is a restriction on the means we can use to pursue what we cannot help but view as a worthy end: getting other people to recognize what is true and what is right. Since homosexuality is perfectly right, I demand much more than tolerance. Since a political or religious view has real potential to be quite wrong, I am content with tolerance--and there is nothing intolerant about talking to someone, advancing an argument (though there might be with particularly stubborn or continual argument, such that argument itself, rather than its rational content, becomes a factor.)

Of course it's a double standard. It seems to me that you want to rationalize your own intolerance on the basis that your hypothetical child would make a choice in becoming a Limbaugh fan or a Mormon.

No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "choice." Pursuing relationships with the same sex is a choice, too, though the attraction itself is not. It has to do with the moral and rational content of different choices. It is wrong to be a fan of a vile racist demagogue like Rush Limbaugh. It is wrong to oppose homosexuality and abortion. It is not wrong to pursue romantic and sexual relationships with the same sex.

I would not expect any parent who had a sincere belief that homosexuality was wrong to avoid expressing that view to his or her children, even his or her gay children. Instead, I expect parents, and people in general, not to have such an absurd and prejudiced view in the first place.

Either way you're saying that your support and acceptance are conditional upon your kids living the way you want them to,

Well, it depends on what you mean by "support and acceptance." They would still be my children and I would still love them. If they were not yet economically self-sufficient, I would continue to provide for them just as before. I would not punish them in any way.

But, no, I wouldn't be quiet about my opinions of their politics.

and that their choices aren't really their own to make without you at least taking a crack at them.

Of course their choices are their own to make, but since when does respect for autonomy preclude disagreement? I must not coerce them to change their minds, and in this context "coerce" for me is very broad. But argument is not coercion.

So not all beliefs are equal?

Certainly not. To choose the most trivial example, the belief that 1 + 1 = 2 and the belief that 1 + 1 = 3 are not at all equivalent.

But who makes the call?

We all do, using reason.

If someone disagrees with me, I will hear that person out and make a good faith effort to consider his or her arguments, but if he or she makes no reasonable argument, I am not obliged to accept that view as equally legitimate to mine. Why should I?

Well, no, you don't owe anyone justification. Justification of opinions is for people who want to be taken seriously.

I ain't yet seen someone here justify attacking me for not being willing to put my son in a dress, so I do hope you understand I'm not taking anyone else here seriously either.

..Although I am getting to like the "IMPOSING GENDER NORMS" repeating mantra. It has a rhythm to it. I wonder if I can put that to music... maybe the Imperial March.

Dum dum dum dum dee dum, duh Impose...
Dum dum dum dat de dum, duh Impose...
DUM dum dum DUM duh
du duhgender roles, dum dum
du dudgender roles dum dum
duh dee dum, duh dee dum

"Lord Bretonnia, you honor us with your arrival."
"You may dispense with the pleasantries, Commander. I'm here to put you back in slacks."
"I assure you, my men are wearing boxer shorts underneath..."
"Then perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them."
"I assure you none of our males are wearing pretty pink dresses."
"The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation."
"He asks the impossible. I need more suit jackets."
"Then perhaps you can tell him that when he arrives."
<GULP>"The Emperor is coming here?"
"That is correct, Commander, and he is most displeased with your apparent lack of gender appropriate attire."
"We shall redouble our wardrobe!"
"I hope so Commander, for your sake."

But there again, if all I'm arguing is that there's more than one way to look at it, how can I support that in a subjective way that would force someone to draw the conclusion that it is so?

You either believe people can have differing viewpoints on an issue or you don't.

Now, if you want to discuss the whys and wherefores of what would make me cringe at the thought of my son in a dress we can do that after we establish this foundation: "I do not agree with you and that's okay!"

I think it's been well-established that I (and others) don't agree with you.
And there's no question that people can have different viewpoints on different issues, either. Otherwise, this forum would be quite pointless and rather dead.

But not all opinions are equal. Some are positive, some are neutral, and some are harmful.
Which is one of the reason why the comparison between a gay son and a son turned millitant racist isn't in any way valid. The gay son it not causing anybody any harm, the militant racist quite likely will.

As you have so far avoided any clear statements on your motivation for your theoretical reaction in the theoretical situation that your son would have wanted to dress up as a princess, I'm afraid all we can do is keep asking.

And no, no opinion without reason is ever ok, even if I agree with the opinion.


Gawd if only people truly grasped that.

I wonder how many of those attacking me int his thread are honestly doing it because it's what they'd want done to them back. I find it hilarious that I'm in here demanding the same acknowledgment of a right to disagree as everyone else expects and you want to slap ME with the Golden Rule. That's freakin' awesome.

Maybe in a weird way, that's progress.

Nobody is debating that you have the right to disagree.
What they are debating is the moral merit of using your influence on a minor in the way you suggested you would.

I ain't yet seen someone here justify attacking me for not being willing to put my son in a dress, so I do hope you understand I'm not taking anyone else here seriously either.

..Although I am getting to like the "IMPOSING GENDER NORMS" repeating mantra. It has a rhythm to it. I wonder if I can put that to music... maybe the Imperial March.

Dum dum dum dum dee dum, duh Impose...
Dum dum dum dat de dum, duh Impose...
DUM dum dum DUM duh
du duhgender roles, dum dum
du dudgender roles dum dum
duh dee dum, duh dee dum

"Lord Bretonnia, you honor us with your arrival."
"You may dispense with the pleasantries, Commander. I'm here to put you back in slacks."
"I assure you, my men are wearing boxer shorts underneath..."
"Then perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them."
"I assure you none of our males are wearing pretty pink dresses."
"The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation."
"He asks the impossible. I need more suit jackets."
"Then perhaps you can tell him that when he arrives."
<GULP>"The Emperor is coming here?"
"That is correct, Commander, and he is most displeased with your apparent lack of gender appropriate attire."
"We shall redouble our wardrobe!"
"I hope so Commander, for your sake."

You do have that victim complex down to a T, don't you?

But I owe you no justification. People are free to post their view and opinions without obligation to support them in a way that you would accept.

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to justify your point of view, don't post it.

Know why? because nobody's mind is gonna get changed on here regardless of how well supported their view is.

Wrong. My mind has been changed on here, several times. And I'm pretty sure yours has at least once, on abortion, since you announced it publicly.

I'm a very open-minded person. I'm very difficult to convince, but that's usually because I've thought out my opinions a lot more thoroughly than my opponents suppose. I'm willing to listen to a good argument. But it gets frustrating and tiresome when people are unwilling to advance one.

I don't see people on your side of the argument lining up to explain to me the rationale behind their views. All I see is "Everybody has rights and and sexual identity is fluid and you're wrong."

Well, by necessity, we generally don't have the time or the inclination to spend the effort deriving every view from first principles. That's why it helps when someone makes a particular objection, and clarifies where they're coming from, so the scope of the debate isn't so wide.

Instead, though, you seem intent upon avoiding any kind of debate at all, at least as far as the actual issues here go. Rather, you want us to grant some kind of mystical respect to the fact that you disagree, despite the fact that you haven't given us any kind of justification for that disagreement, or even a clear statement of exactly what it is you disagree with.

I think your standard is a bad one because I have yet to see a compelling argument that says somehow society is a better place when 'gender bending' is the norm (or even healthy).

That's a start.

Society is a better place when gender-bending is accepted as legitimate because society is a better place when people are free to live their own lives: when people are free to seek happiness where they can find it. Freedom, in general, is a good, both instrumentally (as a means to individual happiness) and inherently (as an end-in-itself).

Actually it's not a line of reasoning so much as a bunch of people who, at best, share an opinion and at worst are victims of groupthink mentality.

Well, bigotry is indeed a kind of groupthink mentality, but I don't think your semantic objection is relevant.

I'm not going to answer the same questions over and over. Just read the thread.

I don't think you've ever answered that question. You've drawn a questionable distinction between different kinds of "role-playing", but you haven't actually explained what's wrong with a boy getting his face painted like a princess. If you have, then it would be appreciated if you could point me to the relevant post.

This is for both you and Soheran: I haven't gotten into the business of defending the exact reasons for my choices precisely because the point I've been trying to get across is that my reasoning isn't the issue. The issue is that I have a separate point of view form yours. That's all.

Fine. And none of us are holding a gun to your head and insisting that you change it. None of us are threatening you in any way. All we're doing is advancing arguments.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

I"m snipping some of this short for the sake of brevity, not content. If you feel I've left something important out without addressing it, just let me know.

Then you're bigoted, and stubborn about your bigotry. Unfortunate.

Call me what you want, but don't you ever claim to be open minded when I'm around, or I will call bullshit on you.


Neesika has already clarified that she was being facetious in labeling this "a gay agenda." And homosexuality is inherently a case of gender bending; <snip>


Different rules for different folks, apparently.


Because relative standards are appropriate for politics, not for dealing with individuals.
<snip>

I'm not going to kneel in thanks because you or anyone else has a better stance than some other people. That's a slavish standard.


Gee, THAT wasn't melodramatic.


Moral acceptance, for one--the recognition that no reasonable moral standard can condemn homosexuality. Not this condescending nonsense about "love the sinner, hate the sin", which applies to serial killing, too. <snip>


There is the hypocrisy. Right there. You will continue to attack people until they see things exactly the way you want them to. You, one paragraph ago, complained about others imposing their beliefs on you but you are obviously prepared to hold yourself to a much different standard.

I have a gay brother and you know why he and I get along better than either of us does with any of our siblings? Because we understand each other. He knows what I think of his lifestyle and I know what he thinks of mine. We accept that about each other, and we live and let live and it doesn't get in the way of us being brothers and enjoying each others' company. He's never once called me a 'bigot' and I've never once called him a 'fag'. That sort of thing is juvenile and beneath our dignity.

Apparently not beneath everyone's but then this is why I have such great respect for him.


It feels fine. Yes, I'm still inclined to criticize you.

You suggest that tolerance of homosexuality is the equivalent of tolerance for a religious or political view, but it is not, because homosexuality and religious and political views are not equivalent. One is morally neutral, the other has the potential of being irrational or morally wrong.


I see, so accepting homosexuality in someone else is mandatory, but accepting someone's politics or religion is contingent upon how well you like it.

Well I'll give you credit, Soheran, at least you just come out and say it. You don't try to hide it behind the hyperbole and bullshit most people do. I respect that.


If by "tolerance" you mean the kind of tolerance we should have toward people we don't agree with, then I don't want people to be "tolerant" of homosexuality at all: I want them to come to the clear conclusion of unprejudiced reason on the topic, that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, nothing we should disagree with.


That won't happen. The best you're going to get is tolerance and non-discrimination. If that's not good enough for you then I'm sorry, buddy. But I can promise you that there's no reason we can't still get along even with those differences.

Mind you, if you maintain that you can't get along with someone like me then the bigotry label shifts to you, much as I hate to say it. My gay family and my gay friends have no problem with my beliefs, and it's not because they're somehow less courageous or less enlightened than you. It's because they understand that not everybody has to think exactly the same about everything.


No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "choice." Pursuing relationships with the same sex is a choice, too, though the attraction itself is not. It has to do with the moral and rational content of different choices. It is wrong to be a fan of a vile racist demagogue like Rush Limbaugh. It is wrong to oppose homosexuality and abortion. It is not wrong to pursue romantic and sexual relationships with the same sex.


That block contained a list of your opinions, not facts. For example, I happen to think Rush is NOT a racist, but then I don't listen to him with my mind already made up. Can you say that?


I would not expect any parent who had a sincere belief that homosexuality was wrong to avoid expressing that view to his or her children, even his or her gay children. Instead, I expect parents, and people in general, not to have such an absurd and prejudiced view in the first place.


It's kind of ironic that you say this, considering my son, (who lives with my ex) picked up some very openly anti-gay rhetoric somewhere and I was the one who had to explain to him that it is wrong to discriminate employment (for example) on the basis of who somebody sleeps with.

But I suppose that's not good enough either. Ah well, I did it for him, not for you.


Well, it depends on what you mean by "support and acceptance." They would still be my children and I would still love them. If they were not yet economically self-sufficient, I would continue to provide for them just as before. I would not punish them in any way.

But, no, I wouldn't be quiet about my opinions of their politics.


But you'd expect me to STFU if one of my kids were gay and give him a pat on the back for being so courageous as to come out, right?


Of course their choices are their own to make, but since when does respect for autonomy preclude disagreement? I must not coerce them to change their minds, and in this context "coerce" for me is very broad. But argument is not coercion.


Judging from the descriptors you've been using in this discussion, it's hard not to see coercion. You certainly don't come across as objective and understanding at all.


Certainly not. To choose the most trivial example, the belief that 1 + 1 = 2 and the belief that 1 + 1 = 3 are not at all equivalent.


And I suppose you see your own opinions as carrying the same weight as 1+1=2 in terms of veracity?

Because if you do, that's far more narrow minded than I could ever be.


We all do, using reason.

If someone disagrees with me, I will hear that person out and make a good faith effort to consider his or her arguments, but if he or she makes no reasonable argument, I am not obliged to accept that view as equally legitimate to mine. Why should I?

Maybe you shouldn't. But then, neither do I. We all play by the same rules, my friend.

Can we avoid a debate about debating!

I think it's been well-established that I (and others) don't agree with you.
And there's no question that people can have different viewpoints on different issues, either. Otherwise, this forum would be quite pointless and rather dead.

That's why I know that deep down, you love that I'm here :D


But not all opinions are equal. Some are positive, some are neutral, and some are harmful.
Which is one of the reason why the comparison between a gay son and a son turned millitant racist isn't in any way valid. The gay son it not causing anybody any harm, the militant racist quite likely will.


Who said militant racist? That wasn't my example.


As you have so far avoided any clear statements on your motivation for your theoretical reaction in the theoretical situation that your son would have wanted to dress up as a princess, I'm afraid all we can do is keep asking.


That's absolutely correct. And I've said why that is.


And no, no opinion without reason is ever ok, even if I agree with the opinion.


So if my opinion is that Daffodils are prettier than roses, my opinion isn't ok because I didn't use reason to arrive at it? Geez, Cabra. I'm not a robot. Are you? 'cause that would be really cool. I've never met a robot before :)


Nobody is debating that you have the right to disagree.
What they are debating is the moral merit of using your influence on a minor in the way you suggested you would.

God forbid I use my influence on my own child.

(But it's great that you call them 'minors' instead of my kids like that's only one step away from, say, 'abuse of a minor' or molestation or something.)

How many kids do you have, again?

You do have that victim complex down to a T, don't you?

Wow, who shit in your cornflakes this morning? I thought that post was funny.

Funny how you accuse me of having the victim complex when I'm the one people have been putting on the defensive throughout this discussion. I don't mind it because I am learning some new things. Sounds to me like you're applying some preconceived assumptions here.

Who said militant racist? That wasn't my example.

I've got no clue who that Rush something guy is, but from the context I assumed he would be something as nice and likeable. So replace it with your example, then.


That's absolutely correct. And I've said why that is.

Because people won't like it? And you really think that's going to be accepted, filed and forgotten?


So if my opinion is that Daffodils are prettier than roses, my opinion isn't ok because I didn't use reason to arrive at it? Geez, Cabra. I'm not a robot. Are you? 'cause that would be really cool. I've never met a robot before :)

I'd classify that as a neutral opinion. In which case I wouldn't care for your reasons.


God forbid I use my influence on my own child.

(But it's great that you call them 'minors' instead of my kids like that's only one step away from, say, 'abuse of a minor' or molestation or something.)

How many kids do you have, again?

So just because it's your child, it's ok? Really?
I think you might want to take a page out of Smunkee's book now and again...

I don't have any, but I raised 2.


Wow, who shit in your cornflakes this morning? I thought that post was funny.

Funny how you accuse me of having the victim complex when I'm the one people have been putting on the defensive throughout this discussion. I don't mind it because I am learning some new things. Sounds to me like you're applying some preconceived assumptions here.

You've put yourself in the defensive, mostly by avoiding any real debate. But it's great that you don't mind, nevertheless.

However you raise your children they will rebel against it.

So every which way You All Lose.

This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to justify your point of view, don't post it.


Geez where have you been? I've been justifying that pint of view for like, 2 hours.


Wrong. My mind has been changed on here, several times. And I'm pretty sure yours has at least once, on abortion, since you announced it publicly.

Yes but that was a technical issue supportable by facts and realities. How do you defend (or attack, for that matter) the argument that there are multiple viewpoints on this issue?


I'm a very open-minded person. I'm very difficult to convince, but that's usually because I've thought out my opinions a lot more thoroughly than my opponents suppose. I'm willing to listen to a good argument. But it gets frustrating and tiresome when people are unwilling to advance one.


I'm sorry but I have not seen this trait popping out in this discussion in the least.

Just sayin'.


Well, by necessity, we generally don't have the time or the inclination to spend the effort deriving every view from first principles. That's why it helps when someone makes a particular objection, and clarifies where they're coming from, so the scope of the debate isn't so wide.


I'm sorry but if I advanced that excuse, I'd get blasted for it. You know that.


Instead, though, you seem intent upon avoiding any kind of debate at all, at least as far as the actual issues here go. Rather, you want us to grant some kind of mystical respect to the fact that you disagree, despite the fact that you haven't given us any kind of justification for that disagreement, or even a clear statement of exactly what it is you disagree with.


Here's a justification for you: Respect for the right of another human being to hold their own beliefs and/or point of view. Some countries even codify that idea in their national Constitutions. I'm pretty sure it never says you have to justify it before you have a right to it.

Now please note that I didn't just say 'the right' of... I said 'respect for the right of...' That's important because if we've devolved, as a society, to the point where the only thing stopping us from killing each other over our opinions is a little slip of paper somewhere, then all hope is lost. It's not enough to live the letter of that belief, it's necessary to live the SPIRIT of that belief or it means nothing. I have extended that respect to you.


That's a start.

Society is a better place when gender-bending is accepted as legitimate because society is a better place when people are free to live their own lives: when people are free to seek happiness where they can find it. Freedom, in general, is a good, both instrumentally (as a means to individual happiness) and inherently (as an end-in-itself).


Alright but I'm sure you'd agree that such freedom is not absolute. For example, what's your opinion on gun ownership? Eminent Domain? Absolute freedom of speech?


Well, bigotry is indeed a kind of groupthink mentality, but I don't think your semantic objection is relevant.


It certainly can be, but if you think my objection was strictly semantic then you missed the point.


I don't think you've ever answered that question. You've drawn a questionable distinction between different kinds of "role-playing", but you haven't actually explained what's wrong with a boy getting his face painted like a princess. If you have, then it would be appreciated if you could point me to the relevant post.


Keep reading.


Fine. And none of us are holding a gun to your head and insisting that you change it. None of us are threatening you in any way. All we're doing is advancing arguments.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

If all that was happening here was the advancing of arguments then there would be no problem at all. The problem is that you guys are resorting to labeling, outright name calling, ad hominem attacks, personal insults and so on, and then when I call you out on it you rationalize it on the basis that it's okay because I'm just wrong. You call that 'advancing an argument?'

Please.

In my view, male and female are defining characteristics of any person
What about male and female are defining characteristics of any person?
Would you say that they define a person more than their eye color, hair color, or race?

I've got no clue who that Rush something guy is, but from the context I assumed he would be something as nice and likeable. So replace it with your example, then.


Rush Limbaugh is was the first of the big Conservative Talk Radio personalities, and since he has a tendency to tell it like it is, people who like him, like him a LOT and people who don't, hate him.

You'd hate him.

Nice to see that it's still okay for your side to make assumptions, though.


Because people won't like it? And you really think that's going to be accepted, filed and forgotten?


Watch and see.


I'd classify that as a neutral opinion. In which case I wouldn't care for your reasons.


Why is that a neutral opinion but my insistence that I can have an alternate viewpoint is a bad opinion?


So just because it's your child, it's ok? Really?
I think you might want to take a page out of Smunkee's book now and again...

I don't have any, but I raised 2.


YES! I raise MY kids according to MY judgement.

Yes, I know you'd rather they be indoctrinated by someone who agreed with you. Luckily I'm not out there calling for the same thing.


You've put yourself in the defensive, mostly by avoiding any real debate. But it's great that you don't mind, nevertheless.

Actually I see it more as people wanting to argue something different from what I came in here saying. *shrug* It happens all the time. People see the argument they want to see, (as opposed to what I actually said) I refuse to accommodate them, then they get all uppity and mad at me for not taking the bait. It's amusing as hell.

What about male and female are defining characteristics of any person?
Would you say that they define a person more than their eye color, hair color, or race?

First 2 yes, last one no idea I live in Norfolk!

What about male and female are defining characteristics of any person?
Would you say that they define a person more than their eye color, hair color, or race?

Yep. Wouldn't you?

Can we avoid a debate about debating!

Sir, I find it debatable that any debate about debating is actually being debated at this time!

First 2 yes, last one no idea I live in Norfolk!Is there only one race in Norfolk?

Yep. Wouldn't you?No. In all cases you would be describing particular physical characteristics of a person. I don't see why some physical characteristics should be more important than others.

No. In all cases you would be describing particular physical characteristics of a person. I don't see why some physical characteristics should be more important than others.

*shrug* Ok. That's your opinion.

*shrug* Ok. That's your opinion.Is there a particular reason that you have the opinion that you have?

Is there a particular reason that you have the opinion that you have?

That a person's sex is a helluva lot more significant than the color of their eyes or hair? Yeah. Quite a few, actually.

That a person's sex is a helluva lot more significant than the color of their eyes or hair? Yeah. Quite a few, actually.Such as?

Why is that a neutral opinion but my insistence that I can have an alternate viewpoint is a bad opinion?

Does it affect anybody at all but yourself? No? See, that's why I couldn't care less.
It's only when you start affecting others that you need to consider your views carefully, and balance possible merit and harm.


YES! I raise MY kids according to MY judgement.

Yes, I know you'd rather they be indoctrinated by someone who agreed with you. Luckily I'm not out there calling for the same thing.

I'd rather they weren't indoctrinated, but get to dress up as princesses when they want to, regardless if they're girls or boys.


Actually I see it more as people wanting to argue something different from what I came in here saying. *shrug* It happens all the time. People see the argument they want to see, (as opposed to what I actually said) I refuse to accommodate them, then they get all uppity and mad at me for not taking the bait. It's amusing as hell.

That could be because you painfully avoid saying anything really...

Yep. Wouldn't you?

I wouldn't, but hey, that's just me....

Now, if the question was, does it make a difference in how they are treated, the answer would have to be a resounding "It bloody well does".

Such as?
I wouldn't, but hey, that's just me....

Now, if the question was, does it make a difference in how they are treated, the answer would have to be a resounding "It bloody well does".


Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease don't be obtuse. If you can't see the difference based on the fact that the following items exist, with no corresponding analog in the eye color department, then we're on different planes of existence:

Bras
tampons
jockstraps
condoms

Does it affect anybody at all but yourself? No? See, that's why I couldn't care less.
It's only when you start affecting others that you need to consider your views carefully, and balance possible merit and harm.


Are you concluding that, because I disagree with you, that I'm NOT considering my views? Because that would be pretty arrogant.


I'd rather they weren't indoctrinated, but get to dress up as princesses when they want to, regardless if they're girls or boys.


Well if you can't tell the difference between sexes and eye colors, I can see where this might be a non issue for you.


That could be because you painfully avoid saying anything that I want to hear really...

Fixed.

Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease don't be obtuse. If you can't see the difference based on the fact that the following items exist, with no corresponding analog in the eye color department, then we're on different planes of existence:

Bras
tampons
jockstraps
condoms
Those relate to physical characteristics. I did point out that 'male' and 'female' referred to physical characteristics. Just as there are items of clothing that correlate to certain physical characteristics, there is makeup that is made specifically for certain skin colors.
Is there something that doesn't relate to physical characteristics?

Call me what you want, but don't you ever claim to be open minded when I'm around, or I will call bullshit on you.

Did you write this before or after you noticed that I claimed to be open-minded? :)

To be open-minded means being willing to listen to other people, and seriously consider their points of view. It doesn't mean that you can't have strong opinions. If you want to give a justification for your view that isn't bigoted, I'm willing to listen.

Gee, THAT wasn't melodramatic.

I don't think "slavish" is particularly melodramatic, at least not the ways it's typically used. A strictly literal sense might be.

There is the hypocrisy. Right there. You will continue to attack people until they see things exactly the way you want them to.

Well, "attack" changes the terms a little.

I will argue with anyone over anything over which we have a disagreement, if they'll let me. That's how I am. I will argue particularly aggressively against positions that I think are absurd, irrational, immoral, and socially harmful, like opposition to homosexuality. When somebody, as far as I can tell, is unwilling to have a rational discussion about such a topic (or even to think rationally about it), but still feels free to express their bigotry publicly and offensively, sometimes I will mock and insult them instead, to diminish the social power of bigotry and, potentially, to get them to mount a real defense of their point of view.

What you fail to see is that "tolerance" is not a universal constant we should apply universally, without regard for context or circumstance.

You, one paragraph ago, complained about others imposing their beliefs on you but you are obviously prepared to hold yourself to a much different standard.

Actually, I didn't, but since I'm against belief imposition anyway I'll clarify the distinction here.

When I call someone a bigot, that's not imposing my belief at all, that's stating it. When I advance an argument to indicate that someone is a bigot, that's not imposing my belief either, it's attempting to convince someone to accept it. When I mock someone for being offensively bigoted, if that person actually holds by their bigotry on a reasonable basis (insofar as such a thing is possible) I don't think my mockery will change their mind--so that isn't imposing my belief, either.

He's never once called me a 'bigot' and I've never once called him a 'fag'. That sort of thing is juvenile and beneath our dignity.

You're wrong to think that these two are somehow equivalent. A bigot is a perfectly legitimate description for a wide variety of people. But it's never right to call someone a fag--outside of certain particular contexts where its social meaning is different, anyway.

Apparently not beneath everyone's but then this is why I have such great respect for him.

He's free to act as he likes. But some of us aren't particularly fond of condescending tolerance.

I do have friends who have moral problems with homosexuality, and we do get along fine, after a fashion. (One in particular told me, before I came out to him, that all gays were destined for hell, and deserved it. I didn't take that well.) But I hate silent disapproval. To be honest, I'd rather get condemnation: it's something I can hear, something I can argue with, something we can resolve. Because I don't think such a situation is ideal. I'd rather work beyond it. On the selfish material level, I'd rather not deal with the inevitable awkwardness that creeps in--"Should I say this in front of him or not?"--and on the ideal level, I'd rather know people who disapprove of my real faults, not my manufactured ones.

I see, so accepting homosexuality in someone else is mandatory, but accepting someone's politics or religion is contingent upon how well you like it.

We are not obligated to avoid voicing our opposition to views and behaviors we think are wrong. But we are obligated to make our judgments of right and wrong rationally, on good faith. All I have noted is that opposition to homosexuality is so absurd as to fairly clearly not stem from that kind of judgment.

That won't happen. The best you're going to get is tolerance and non-discrimination.

We can never reach an ideal world. But we can work towards one. (Tolerance, too, is an ideal, and our world falls far short of it also.)

Mind you, if you maintain that you can't get along with someone like me then the bigotry label shifts to you, much as I hate to say it.

Who said anything about "get along"?

It's because they understand that not everybody has to think exactly the same about everything.

It's not unanimity I'm after, it's rightness. I think there are multiple right answers to many ethical questions. But there are also wrong ones.

I care about the moral well-being of others: I want them to come to right moral conclusions and do what is right, because that is the best, the truest kind of freedom. I'm not willing to get them to do so "by any means necessary"--that was a joke--because I also want them to get there for the right reasons: because their rationality demands it, not because I have forced it upon them. That's what it means to respect another's autonomy--not a vulgar tolerance that makes every view equal, regardless of its support. (This qualification, too, means that it's not my opinion I'm promoting, but reason itself. If I can't effectively support my view, then no one has any reason to accept it.)

It is strange that I'm explaining this to you. In my experience, it is something that social conservatives often get better than social liberals.

That block contained a list of your opinions, not facts. For example, I happen to think Rush is NOT a racist, but then I don't listen to him with my mind already made up. Can you say that?

I don't listen to Limbaugh at all, but I think I have the rational capacity to make fairly unprejudiced judgments of when something is and is not bigoted. I've defended others against accusations of bigotry that I thought were unfounded, even despite not being particularly fond of them.

Regardless, this is not the issue. If the hypothetical Limbaugh-listening child of mine said that Limbaugh was not, after all, bigoted, and advanced an argument, I would listen to it, and if it was convincing I would change my mind.

It's kind of ironic that you say this, considering my son, (who lives with my ex) picked up some very openly anti-gay rhetoric somewhere and I was the one who had to explain to him that it is wrong to discriminate employment (for example) on the basis of who somebody sleeps with.

Good for you. But don't you see that this is exactly what I am proposing to do? Was explaining this "imposing your beliefs"? Was it intolerant?

But you'd expect me to STFU if one of my kids were gay and give him a pat on the back for being so courageous as to come out, right?

Not at all. If you have a moral opposition to homosexuality, one as profound as I have to homophobia, then you should absolutely go ahead and state your views, make your argument.

My point is that this truth doesn't excuse you from having such an opposition in the first place.

Judging from the descriptors you've been using in this discussion, it's hard not to see coercion.

You'll have to do better than that, sorry.

And I suppose you see your own opinions as carrying the same weight as 1+1=2 in terms of veracity?

Of course not! But I suppose that my opinions, and all others, are subject to the same rules of reason that establish 1 + 1 = 2, and that's the authority I use in judging them.

Maybe you shouldn't. But then, neither do I.

Fine with me.

Those relate to physical characteristics. I did point out that 'male' and 'female' referred to physical characteristics. Just as there are items of clothing that correlate to certain physical characteristics, there is makeup that is made specifically for certain skin colors.
Is there something that doesn't relate to physical characteristics?

Hair and eye colors are physical characteristics, too. You asked why sex was more important.

Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease don't be obtuse. If you can't see the difference based on the fact that the following items exist, with no corresponding analog in the eye color department, then we're on different planes of existence:

Bras
tampons
jockstraps
condoms


And those lead directly to boys not being allowed to dress up as princesses? Interesting...


Are you concluding that, because I disagree with you, that I'm NOT considering my views? Because that would be pretty arrogant.


Fixed.

Quite.
Because you've been asked again and again to share the reasoning that leads you to your opinions.
And your careful refusal to do so does make one speculate if that might be because there is none...

Hair and eye colors are physical characteristics, too. You asked why sex was more important.Because specific articles of clothing are designed to accomodate reproductive organs?

Geez where have you been? I've been justifying that pint of view for like, 2 hours.

"But I owe you no justification. People are free to post their view and opinions without obligation to support them in a way that you would accept."

That's what I was responding to.

Yes but that was a technical issue supportable by facts and realities.

Let's see, I've been convinced to change my mind about free will, objective morality, vigilantism, social contract theory, anarcho-primitivism, the ethics of culture and identity, the merits of consequentialist ethics, political obligation to undemocratic regimes, and somewhat indirectly, how to deal with the social facts of religion and gender.

I'm not sure what you mean by "technical", but I'm not sure that all of those qualify.

How do you defend (or attack, for that matter) the argument that there are multiple viewpoints on this issue?

I don't think anyone's disputing the argument that there are multiple viewpoints on this issue, but the obvious way to defend it would be to provide them, and the obvious way to attack it would be to dispute the argument that the alternatives presented actually exist.

I'm sorry but I have not seen this trait popping out in this discussion in the least.

How do you "see" open-mindedness? I don't think I've been ignoring your arguments at all; I think I've been responding to them fairly carefully and thoughtfully.

True, I haven't budged from my position, but that's because I'm pretty sure I'm right, and, like I said, I've thought out this question pretty thoroughly.

I'm sorry but if I advanced that excuse, I'd get blasted for it. You know that.

I certainly would not blast you for it. I would do exactly what I have suggested you do: make a specific objection and expect you to respond to that, not demand that you justify everything from a=a.

Here's a justification for you: Respect for the right of another human being to hold their own beliefs and/or point of view.

I agree with that premise, but I don't see an argument. I'm not sure how you want to use it to defend your position.

It's not enough to live the letter of that belief, it's necessary to live the SPIRIT of that belief or it means nothing.

I very much agree. But what is "the SPIRIT of that belief"? I don't think that in any respect it precludes arguing with someone's view or condemning someone's actions. What it means is that we respect that person's freedom: we don't bully or intimidate or manipulate or otherwise coerce her into changing her mind or her actions, assuming she isn't violating anyone else's freedom.

Alright but I'm sure you'd agree that such freedom is not absolute.

Of course it isn't. Politically speaking, we should restrict freedom when it interferes with the freedom of others. I don't think gender bending does any such thing.

It certainly can be, but if you think my objection was strictly semantic then you missed the point.

And the point would be...?

The problem is that you guys are resorting to labeling, outright name calling, ad hominem attacks, personal insults and so on, and then when I call you out on it you rationalize it on the basis that it's okay because I'm just wrong.

Well, some of that isn't particularly nice or respectful, but none of it is imposing our views upon you. It's true that in a rational discussion we should make an effort to avoid antagonizing others (a likely way to make it less rational), and we certainly should avoid committing an ad hominem fallacy.

But I certainly haven't done the latter in this discussion--at no point have I indicated that your arguments are wrong because of who you are--and the only potentially antagonizing personal attack I've launched is calling you bigoted, which I did in response to a particular statement of yours that lacked an actual argument to respond to.

I doubt what your kids do is illogical to them. Just like what I said about mine.

See the difference?

I doubt my kids use logic at all in deciding whether or not they should do something. And if they did, wouldn't they be using the same logic that evryone else uses? It's not like logic is some subjective thing, after all.

Or are you saying I should only prevent them from doing things that are illogical to them? Because that's probably the weirdest and most useless piece of parenting advice I have ever received.


Okie doke.

You subsequent posts have done nothing to change my mind.

...You guys accuse Conservatives and Christians of being judgmental, yet how many of you have already presumed to judge me and slap labels? You accuse Christians of pushing their beliefs on others and yet you've already come out and said that I'm a bigot and that my kids have no self-identity and all because I do not share your beliefs on something as trivial as how a child gets their face painted or what sort of costume I'd let them wear....

Please find one quote where I


accuse Conservatives and Christians of being judgmental,
accuse Christians of pushing their beliefs on others,
said you're a bigot, or
said your kids have no self identity.


Look, I believe that my kids should be able to get their face painted however they want, provided they're not using toxic paints. The same goes for the costume. You say that you don't share those beliefs.

Are you saying you would actually restrict these choices? Why?

From a parenting point of view, this makes no sense, unless you're one of those parents who feels that it's important to show the kids that you're the boss and they have to listen to you, even about something as trivial as this.

And you call us judgmental and narrow. Nice. :)

No, actually, I didn't. Stop pretending you're being persecuted.

Rush Limbaugh is was the first of the big Conservative Talk Radio personalities, and since he has a tendency to tell it like it is, people who like him, like him a LOT and people who don't, hate him.

You'd hate him.

Nice to see that it's still okay for your side to make assumptions, though.

He's also a complete and utter racist, so Cabra was kind of right.

And those lead directly to boys not being allowed to dress up as princesses? Interesting...


Yes, Cabra, that's exactly what I said :rolleyes:


Quite.
Because you've been asked again and again to share the reasoning that leads you to your opinions.
And your careful refusal to do so does make one speculate if that might be because there is none...

Go right ahead. If the way you handle it is anything like that quote at the top, it would have been a waste of my time anyway.

Because specific articles of clothing are designed to accomodate reproductive organs?

Yeah. right. :confused:

You subsequent posts have done nothing to change my mind.


I don't care.

But since you've decided I'm lying about having kids, there's not much basis to continue discussing it with you. It's a waste of my time.

Is there only one race in Norfolk?



No, but there are so few people from minorities (compared to the National average) I don't like to judge anything about them.

The fundamental disconnect here lies in the erroneous perception that respect for your right to believe somehow equates to respect of your beliefs.

I respect everyone’s right to believe as they wish. I respect your right to be a homophobe, a bigot, a racist. I respect your right to believe in all of that.

But if you do, I don’t respect you. You have a right to hold those beliefs, but your right to believe in it does not immunize you from my right to criticize you for believing in it.

I don't care.

But since you've decided I'm lying about having kids, there's not much basis to continue discussing it with you. It's a waste of my time.

No, I said I was unsure of your claims to have children. On the one hand, you discuss them as casually as any parent would, but on the other hand, you ascribe to them qualities that they obviously do not have. Maybe you do have kids, but you assume that they have nothing to teach you, I don't know. I just don't understand how you can believe that children that are young enough to play dress-up are also smart enough to logically refute any suggestion of gender blending.

See, this is how I picture it:

Neo B's little boy: I'm going to put that dress on.
Neo B: I don't think you should do that, son.
Neo B's little boy: Why not?
Neo B: It's illogical, son.
Neo B's little boy: It is?
Neo B: Well, it's illogical to you.
Neo B's little boy: What?
Neo B: And I shouldn't let you do things that are illogical.
Neo B's little boy: So, why can't I put that dress on?
Neo B: I just told you, son.

This is a conversation that I would never imagine occuring between a parent and child. You claim that you have conversations like that. Can you see why I would wonder if you even have children? To be honest, most of the time, you seem pretty smart and easy going, and this is the first time you have shown any indication of not actually being a parent. Thus, I am confused.

Now, if you could just explain to me you would actually restrict their choices of make-up and costumes, I am sure it would clarify things immensely.

"But I owe you no justification. People are free to post their view and opinions without obligation to support them in a way that you would accept."

That's what I was responding to.


Here's something I've noticed on these forums, and whenever I bring it up it hits a nerve on somebody because the response is usually swift and intense, but I bring it up now because you asked.

Most people don't come on here to have an objective and open discussion. Most of us are opinionated people who want to express ourselves. That's all perfectly fine, but then there's this sort of pretense on many people's part that their being fair, objective and open minded.

DO you know how often I've found myself sitting here, staring at the screen, wondering "How the hell did they get THAT from what I said?" And for a long time I though well, maybe I'm just not being clear or maybe I'm not doing enough to understand their point of view so I can meet them halfway...

But then one day I realized... Very few people are willing to meet halfway. They sort of have this set of arguments they know how to refute, and try to shoehorn whatever is said onto tone of those, sort of like a semantic template. Anything that falls outside of that gets ignored, distorted, whatever... So at the end of the day when I find myself in a discussion where I make one statement and then am expected to restate it over and over I lose interest because I know I could clarify it another ten thousand times and it'll make no difference.

Now, you say you're not the sort of person to do that, and yet you've already made it clear that you are not prepared to accept anything that doesn't harmonize with your worldview. If I say something like (picking an anti-gay argument at random here, not necessarily one I'd advance) "Homosexuality is unnatural because..." From what has gone, you'd instantly classify me as a bigot, which, in addition to giving you an excuse to block out anything else I might say, is also insulting and unworthy of a discussion that is allegedly open and honest.

I know what a bigot is. I deal with religious bigots all the time. From what's been said on this thread, I could take your logic and call you one. I refrain from doing so out of a sense of respect for other points of view and because, quite frankly, when a debate devolves into name-calling it's no longer worth spending time on.

So for all the wrangling and complaining you've done about what us 'evil religious right' people do, you're the one, of the two of us, that has the most to answer for in terms of how this discussion has been conducted.

I haven't:

-Categorically dismissed your opinion
-Categorically dismissed the opinions of any people who share your views
-Insulted you personally (At least, not deliberately)
-Indicated an absolute refusal to acknowledge the value of someone else's view, even though it conflicts with mine.

That last one is important because I want you, and everybody else to understand something. When I extend that basic level of mature, human respect for you and your opinion, it's not because I even see the inherent value of it, or even if it has any. I simply respect your right to have it and I demonstrate that by hearing you out honestly and openly. Sometimes people interpret the fact that I haven't changed my mind as a sign of not listening, or not understanding, and that's unfortunate, because they're missing out on an opportunity to build bridges.

I have appreciated the fact that you've been very open about how you see things. More open than most. That's the reason I've been willing to talk with you a little about the reasoning behind my perspective. It's really beside the point I was making earlier, but meh. I won't be stubborn about that with somebody who seems to be at least making an effort to be plain.

I'm sure you've noticed not everybody is, and I'm not wasting my time playing games with them.


Let's see, I've been convinced to change my mind about free will, objective morality, vigilantism, social contract theory, anarcho-primitivism, the ethics of culture and identity, the merits of consequentialist ethics, political obligation to undemocratic regimes, and somewhat indirectly, how to deal with the social facts of religion and gender.

I'm not sure what you mean by "technical", but I'm not sure that all of those qualify.


That was in response to someone pointing out that I had changed my mind on the legality of abortion issue, to to the technical issues involved.


I don't think anyone's disputing the argument that there are multiple viewpoints on this issue, but the obvious way to defend it would be to provide them, and the obvious way to attack it would be to dispute the argument that the alternatives presented actually exist.


I'm not sure what you mean here. I've been presenting my viewpoint ad nauseam this whole thread.

Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that I've been arguing that my point of view is equally valid although again I don't know how someone would prove or disprove it.


How do you "see" open-mindedness? I don't think I've been ignoring your arguments at all; I think I've been responding to them fairly carefully and thoughtfully.

True, I haven't budged from my position, but that's because I'm pretty sure I'm right, and, like I said, I've thought out this question pretty thoroughly.


And that's fine, but you've already indicated a categorical refusal to acknowledge that some of those conservative viewpoints can have validity, even if you don't agree with them.


I certainly would not blast you for it. I would do exactly what I have suggested you do: make a specific objection and expect you to respond to that, not demand that you justify everything from a=a.


Then that separates you from the herd.


I agree with that premise, but I don't see an argument. I'm not sure how you want to use it to defend your position.


Because if I have my own point of view, and we agree that a person's right to hold an alternate viewpoint should be respected, then how are some of the tactics used in this thread a sign of that respect?


I very much agree. But what is "the SPIRIT of that belief"? I don't think that in any respect it precludes arguing with someone's view or condemning someone's actions. What it means is that we respect that person's freedom: we don't bully or intimidate or manipulate or otherwise coerce her into changing her mind or her actions, assuming she isn't violating anyone else's freedom.


Well that's just it. People have been trying to bully me this whole thread. (Failing, mind you, because I refuse to get emotionally worked up over something stupid) "Oh, NB won't let his son dress like a princess! That bigoted, homophobic(sic), religious zealot! He's probably got insecurity issues and he's certainly a bad parent!"

Do you call that an argument that preserves the idea of respect? And if you're tempted to suggest that I'm somehow exaggerating, take a quick scan over some of Dempublicents' replies.


Of course it isn't. Politically speaking, we should restrict freedom when it interferes with the freedom of others. I don't think gender bending does any such thing.


I agree with you.

Surprise!

But then, that's why I don't advocate for laws banning gay marriage, transvestitism, transsexualism, etc.


And the point would be...?


The point is that semantics or not, 'fag' and 'bigot' are two words that are universally insulting (except the context you mentioned before) regardless of whether or not someone feels they apply. By the time an argument devolves to that point, the application of the terms seldom matters much anyway, wouldn't you agree?


Well, some of that isn't particularly nice or respectful, but none of it is imposing our views upon you. It's true that in a rational discussion we should make an effort to avoid antagonizing others (a likely way to make it less rational), and we certainly should avoid committing an ad hominem fallacy.

But I certainly haven't done the latter in this discussion--at no point have I indicated that your arguments are wrong because of who you are--and the only potentially antagonizing personal attack I've launched is calling you bigoted, which I did in response to a particular statement of yours that lacked an actual argument to respond to.

I'm wondering of maybe you aren't aware of how vitriolic it can be to call some one bigoted. I don't use that word lightly, even when I'm perfectly justified to do so. I certainly don't use it when debating with someone who is at least trying to be reasonable. Evidently I can't expect a similar courtesy, but meh.

When someone whips out labels like 'bigot' or 'homophobe' it essentially sends the message (intended or not) that their mind is made up, that they've already made a character judgment about you, and you're about to be pigeonholed no matter what you actually think or believe. That's what makes it a problem.

The fundamental disconnect here lies in the erroneous perception that respect for your right to believe somehow equates to respect of your beliefs.

I respect everyone’s right to believe as they wish. I respect your right to be a homophobe, a bigot, a racist. I respect your right to believe in all of that.

But if you do, I don’t respect you. You have a right to hold those beliefs, but your right to believe in it does not immunize you from my right to criticize you for believing in it.

And you know what? That's perfectly fine, but when people start using inflammatory language to describe you and/or your beliefs then they're not even showing that level of respect (all the while pretending that they do)

No, I said I was unsure of your claims to have children. On the one hand, you discuss them as casually as any parent would, but on the other hand, you ascribe to them qualities that they obviously do not have. Maybe you do have kids, but you assume that they have nothing to teach you, I don't know. I just don't understand how you can believe that children that are young enough to play dress-up are also smart enough to logically refute any suggestion of gender blending.

See, this is how I picture it:

Neo B's little boy: I'm going to put that dress on.
Neo B: I don't think you should do that, son.
Neo B's little boy: Why not?
Neo B: It's illogical, son.
Neo B's little boy: It is?
Neo B: Well, it's illogical to you.
Neo B's little boy: What?
Neo B: And I shouldn't let you do things that are illogical.
Neo B's little boy: So, why can't I put that dress on?
Neo B: I just told you, son.


Are you prepared to accept the possibility that you've misunderstood? Because what you just said isn't how it went, nor did I say that.

I said that my child would find the suggestion of cross dressing to be illogical. In other words, it wouldn't make sense to them. So if I were to rewrite your dialogue example to fit what I'm talking about, it would go like this:

Me: You know, son, if you want, you can get that princess costume instead of that knight costume.
My son:OK... but why would I?
Me: Just saying... you can if you want to.
My son: But daddy... I'm a boy.
Me: I know.
My son:Aren't princesses girls?
My: Yes.
My son: So why would I get a princess costume?
Me: Just saying you can if you want.
My son(Now confused):That doesn't make sense.

He would simply not see the logic behind getting a costume that's plainly meant for girls. Why is that so complex?

In reality, here's how it went:

Me: So, what do you want to wear for RenFest/Halloween?
My sons: We want to be knights!
Me: Ok, we'll go to the costume shop. I saw some really cool ones.
My Sons: Do they look like real armor?
Me: yeah they have a chain maille look and a tabard.
My Sons:AWESOME! Can we get swords and shields?
Me: Yeah you can use those foam shields you got from the Lego store.
My sons: What about swords?
Me: I'm sure We can find some at Toys R Us

Hideous, isn't it?


This is a conversation that I would never imagine occuring between a parent and child. You claim that you have conversations like that. Can you see why I would wonder if you even have children? To be honest, most of the time, you seem pretty smart and easy going, and this is the first time you have shown any indication of not actually being a parent. Thus, I am confused.


I never made any such claim. I appreciate the kind words there, so I'd have hoped it would have at least earned me the benefit of the doubt.


Now, if you could just explain to me you would actually restrict their choices of make-up and costumes, I am sure it would clarify things immensely.

You mean explain why?

I just want people to be reasonable. And I'm willing to get there by any means necessary.
That's a revolutionary mindset, actually. In order to create that utopian society, be prepared to crush a significant amount of naysayers and others who disagree with the concept of being reasonable.

I want to know, what happens if you make plush trucks?

They become the ones that get crushed in the crusher built from bristle blocks.

Are you prepared to accept the possibility that you've misunderstood?

Definitely, as that would be the simplest solution. And it seems to be the case....

He would simply not see the logic behind getting a costume that's plainly meant for girls. Why is that so complex?

Why do you think that princess costumes are made for girls? I thought they were made for people who wanted to dress up as princesses.

And you see how your son has already accepted the idea that princess costumes are for girls? That's what I meant by it being logical to your kids only if they had already internalised social gender roles. People who had never internalised such beliefs would not share your child's 'logic'.

You mean explain why?

Yes, I seem to have had a typo in there. Two questions: if your child, for whatever reason, wanted to dress up in a costume traditionally associated with the opposite gender, would you allow it? If not, why not?

Definitely, as that would be the simplest solution. And it seems to be the case....


Alright cool.


Why do you think that princess costumes are made for girls? I thought they were made for people who wanted to dress up as princesses.

And you see how your son has already accepted the idea that princess costumes are for girls? That's what I meant by it being logical to your kids only if they had already internalised social gender roles. People who had never internalised such beliefs would not share your child's 'logic'.


I have 2 points to make on that.

1)I don't see this as a bad thing. I think kids that are artificially put in an environment where there is no sexual identity (I hate to say 'gender' in this context. 'Gender' is a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of a noun in languages that have that structure. Words have a gender. Living things have a sex.) can become confused without some kind of anchor.

2)Why do I say artificially? Because of that study I mentioned a couple pages back (I haven't had the time to look for a link yet) in which toddlers who had been raised without being encouraged toward one sex or the other were placed in a room with a box of 'boy' toys and a box of 'girl' toys. The boys all went straight for the cars, trucks, bulldozers, etc and the girls all went for the dolls and dress up clothes. Seems to me there's a certain amount of sexual identity built in naturally.

Actually, I believe somebody linked to something similar earlier in the thread...


Yes, I seem to have had a typo in there. Two questions: if your child, for whatever reason, wanted to dress up in a costume traditionally associated with the opposite gender, would you allow it? If not, why not?

1)No
2)For the above reasons.

1)No
2)For the above reasons.

I don't see how the above reasons justify you from not allowing your kid to do so. Why is something being unusual a reason for it to be restricted?

1)I don't see this as a bad thing. I think kids that are artificially put in an environment where there is no sexual identity (I hate to say 'gender' in this context. 'Gender' is a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of a noun in languages that have that structure. Words have a gender. Living things have a sex.) can become confused without some kind of anchor.
What would be the symptoms/effects of this confusion?

2)Why do I say artificially? Because of that study I mentioned a couple pages back (I haven't had the time to look for a link yet) in which toddlers who had been raised without being encouraged toward one sex or the other were placed in a room with a box of 'boy' toys and a box of 'girl' toys. The boys all went straight for the cars, trucks, bulldozers, etc and the girls all went for the dolls and dress up clothes. Seems to me there's a certain amount of sexual identity built in naturally.
Children are not raised in a vacuum. I don't encourage specific gender stereotypes but my children seem to pick them up somewhere.

But then one day I realized... Very few people are willing to meet halfway. They sort of have this set of arguments they know how to refute, and try to shoehorn whatever is said onto tone of those, sort of like a semantic template. Anything that falls outside of that gets ignored, distorted, whatever... So at the end of the day when I find myself in a discussion where I make one statement and then am expected to restate it over and over I lose interest because I know I could clarify it another ten thousand times and it'll make no difference.

You know what? I've had this experience in the discussion we're having right now. I've carefully made distinctions, clarified their basis, and gotten back accusations of hypocrisy and double standards.

But I believe at keeping at it, at least for a while.

Now, you say you're not the sort of person to do that, and yet you've already made it clear that you are not prepared to accept anything that doesn't harmonize with your worldview. If I say something like (picking an anti-gay argument at random here, not necessarily one I'd advance) "Homosexuality is unnatural because..." From what has gone, you'd instantly classify me as a bigot, which, in addition to giving you an excuse to block out anything else I might say, is also insulting and unworthy of a discussion that is allegedly open and honest.

Well, if you made an actual argument, I probably wouldn't actually call you one, unless it came up, but yes, I would think you were.

However, you've gotten it entirely backwards. I don't call people bigots to ignore their arguments. Indeed, even when I think someone is a bigot, I respond to their arguments if they make an attempt at reasonableness, if there's some substance to respond to. The reason I call people opposed to homosexuality bigots is because, having had this argument innumerable times, I have yet to see any real justification for their opposition that isn't founded in prejudice.

But that doesn't mean I've become close-minded. I'm still willing to listen, even to people I think are bigots. If someone can come up with an alternative argument, a convincing one, well, that would be a reason to change my mind. My judgment on this question is provisional.

I haven't:

-Categorically dismissed your opinion
-Categorically dismissed the opinions of any people who share your views
-Insulted you personally (At least, not deliberately)
-Indicated an absolute refusal to acknowledge the value of someone else's view, even though it conflicts with mine.

Of course, I haven't actually done any of the above, except maybe "insulted you personally", and even there it's ambiguous--accusing someone of bigotry can be insulting, but the same is true of accusing someone of hypocrisy, which you seem to think doesn't count. Both of them, of course, concern someone's views, and as such, I think, are fair game.

Sometimes people interpret the fact that I haven't changed my mind as a sign of not listening, or not understanding, and that's unfortunate, because they're missing out on an opportunity to build bridges.

Wait. You are the one who has accused me of being intolerant and close-minded. I don't believe I've accused you of anything of the sort.

The thing is, just like before, what you just said applies very well from my perspective: I have made a serious effort to understand where you are coming from, and responded to your arguments accordingly. From the fact that my rather strong opinions on this topic haven't changed, you seem to conclude that I am somehow intolerant and close-minded... but this, I think, is an error of interpretation of exactly the sort of which you speak.

Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that I've been arguing that my point of view is equally valid although again I don't know how someone would prove or disprove it.

Well, I could ask you to justify it, and you could provide a justification, and I could challenge it, and you could respond to my challenge. And so forth.

And that's fine, but you've already indicated a categorical refusal to acknowledge that some of those conservative viewpoints can have validity,

I don't think I've indicated a "categorical" anything. I'd like to know exactly which statements of mine you're talking about.

Because if I have my own point of view, and we agree that a person's right to hold an alternate viewpoint should be respected, then how are some of the tactics used in this thread a sign of that respect?

They're not. A meter of moral high ground to you.

No, really, what's your point? Do you want me to realize that people can be mean sometimes, even liberals? That doesn't exactly come as news to me. Most people aren't perfect; most people don't always live up to their own ideals. But making constant accusations of hypocrisy is a kind of ad hominem argument--just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean that a particular viewpoint of theirs is wrong.

I agree with you.

But by the same reasoning you shouldn't be interfering with the freedom of your children to get their faces painted like princesses.

I'm wondering of maybe you aren't aware of how vitriolic it can be to call some one bigoted.

Perhaps not. But, then, however "vitriolic" it may sound, it doesn't make the person who states it intolerant.

I don't see how the above reasons justify you from not allowing your kid to do so. Why is something being unusual a reason for it to be restricted?

I could answer this question, if that's what I said.

What would be the symptoms/effects of this confusion?


From what I've observed, self esteem can be a problem. socialization can be a problem, confidence can be a problem.


Children are not raised in a vacuum. I don't encourage specific gender stereotypes but my children seem to pick them up somewhere.

You almost sound disappointed. (Or maybe I'm misinterpreting.)

NB: you've indicated you've read my other reply to you (that's where my discussion of "fag" and "bigot" was), but are you planning on replying to it?

Don't if you don't want to, I'm not trying to pressure you or anything, just curious.

I could answer this question, if that's what I said.


Yet that is what you said. You said that boys tend to masculine toys and girls to feminine toys, the only thing you can deduce from that is that its unusual for boys to opt to do feminine things. You then used this to justify you not allowing your son to dress in something feminine, I don't get how its a justification, so I'm asking you to explain.

NB: you've indicated you've read my other reply to you (that's where my discussion of "fag" and "bigot" was), but are you planning on replying to it?

Don't if you don't want to, I'm not trying to pressure you or anything, just curious.

Um... maybe I missed it in all the other posts I've been replying to. I'll look for it and respond together with you rmost recent.

Um... maybe I missed it in all the other posts I've been replying to. I'll look for it and respond together with you rmost recent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796580&postcount=208

If it helps. :)

NB: you've indicated you've read my other reply to you (that's where my discussion of "fag" and "bigot" was), but are you planning on replying to it?

Don't if you don't want to, I'm not trying to pressure you or anything, just curious.

Um... maybe I missed it in all the other posts I've been replying to. I'll look for it and respond together with you rmost recent.

From what I've observed, self esteem can be a problem. socialization can be a problem, confidence can be a problem.

Can you explain these in greater detail?


You almost sound disappointed. (Or maybe I'm misinterpreting.)
Only when I feel it's adversely affecting them.

But you shouldn't leave your son open to torment and ridicule just to prove your point.

So I should "protect" him by backing up the bullshit idea that there's somehow something wrong with him?

Well it wouldn't because then they are dressing up as Joan d'Arc ;)

Of course females aren't knights i.e they wouldn't be addressed as Sir they would be addressed as Dame which is of the same equal level and title.

What if they didn't want the female version? What if a girl's favorite character was King Arthur or Lancelot and that's the costume she wanted?


And you're right that clothing is a cultural, not necessarily biological thing.

That's why when my boys choose a costume, they want to choose from costumes that enable them to express themselves from the available 'male' options for the culture at hand.

To me, this is the most natural thing in the world and I find it amazing (and more than a little amusing) that I'm expected to defend that.

No one is asking you to defend your sons choosing to dress in traditionally male costumes.

You're being asked to defend your statement that you would not allow them to choose otherwise.

But here's the thing, you're taking an opinion and setting it as a baseline, then expecting others to defend their choices when they differ from that baseline.

We're expecting others - parents in particular - to defend their choices to impose things on their children.

It's sort of like how people who want to make laws have to defend their choice to do so. The person placing the restriction is the one with the need to back it up.

This is where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree because nobody's mind is going to be changed on this point. In my view, male and female are defining characteristics of any person and frankly, I find gender bending offensive.

Why?

Why should a person who doesn't fit the traditional "masculine" or "feminine" mold try to change or hide themselves to suit you - even if they are your children?

And this is a good time to point out something that I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned. Homosexuality =/= gender bending per se. My brother is gay, and is more masculine than most of my straight male friends.

The "norm" for men as a whole is to be attracted to women. The "norm" for women as a whole is to be attracted to men. Your brother is outside of the "masculine" norm.

Crossdressing =/= homosexuality and I know this, yet some of the people debating this point have equated the two.

Not at all, although there are people opposed to it who equate the two. There are certainly straight people who feel more comfortable in clothing seen as being appropriate for the other sex.

I find it interesting, though, that you're ok with a man being so far outside the norm that he is attracted to other men and chooses his partners accordingly, but you're somehow very offended by a man liking "women's" clothing and thus choosing his clothing accordingly.

Of course it's a double standard. It seems to me that you want to rationalize your own intolerance on the basis that your hypothetical child would make a choice in becoming a Limbaugh fan or a Mormon.

Since when is "trying to convince them otherwise" intolerant?

Does that mean I am intolerant of people who are voting for John McCain when I argue in favor of Obama?

Doesn't mean it is true or right, either. I think your standard is a bad one because I have yet to see a compelling argument that says somehow society is a better place when 'gender bending' is the norm (or even healthy).


So you think the world is a better place when people are looked down upon and asked to change when they are simply expressing their own identities in a way that harms no one?

You think it is better to make it clear to your child that you will not accept him for who he is and that he must change to please yo, rather than to celebrate him as he is?

You think the best situation is to arbitrarily pick "male" and "female" things and then enforce that standard just because you need a standard to enforce?

Yes, Cabra, that's exactly what I said :rolleyes:

As a matter of fact, yes, you did.



Go right ahead. If the way you handle it is anything like that quote at the top, it would have been a waste of my time anyway.


I don't think I'll bother.
You posted an opinion, cried discrimination when the opinion was attacked rather than defend it, and go on refusing to discuss it. So what's the point?

I'm not sure what you get out of it, but I hope you enjoy this kind of wasting time...

I have 2 points to make on that.

1)I don't see this as a bad thing. I think kids that are artificially put in an environment where there is no sexual identity (I hate to say 'gender' in this context. 'Gender' is a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of a noun in languages that have that structure. Words have a gender. Living things have a sex.) can become confused without some kind of anchor.

2)Why do I say artificially? Because of that study I mentioned a couple pages back (I haven't had the time to look for a link yet) in which toddlers who had been raised without being encouraged toward one sex or the other were placed in a room with a box of 'boy' toys and a box of 'girl' toys. The boys all went straight for the cars, trucks, bulldozers, etc and the girls all went for the dolls and dress up clothes. Seems to me there's a certain amount of sexual identity built in naturally.

Actually, I believe somebody linked to something similar earlier in the thread...

1)No
2)For the above reasons.

It would stand to reason that a certain amount of sexual and gender identity is genetic or otherwise built-in. If that is the case, a parent would not need to restrict choices, as the child would make the right choices without any external guidance.

But you seem to be saying that children need such guidance in order not to be confused about such roles. If that is what you believe, I have a question.

Do you have any reason to believe that children do get confused in such situations? The experiment you brought up seems to indicate that they do not suffer any confusion even when they are in an artificially gender-free environment.

From what I've observed, self esteem can be a problem. socialization can be a problem, confidence can be a problem.

Self-esteem can also be negatively affected when one's internal identity is repressed by processes such as socialisation. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this confusion of which you speak is more harmful than such repression?

I can see how it would be harder to socialise someone who has experienced an environment where they have not been subject to such pressures. However, you seem to imply that this is a bad thing.

And finally, confidence. I would argue that restricting a child's choices instead of respecting their space in which to make such choices would be more destructive of a child's growing confidence. Your mileage may vary.

Did you write this before or after you noticed that I claimed to be open-minded? :)

Before, but I reacted accordingly ;)


To be open-minded means being willing to listen to other people, and seriously consider their points of view. It doesn't mean that you can't have strong opinions. If you want to give a justification for your view that isn't bigoted, I'm willing to listen.


Then maybe it would be useful to settle on what, exactly, it means to be bigoted.

Because, using racism as an exmaple, some would say that if I use the term 'black' instead of 'African American' that's bigoted. Others would scratch their heads in confusion and wonder why.


I don't think "slavish" is particularly melodramatic, at least not the ways it's typically used. A strictly literal sense might be.


I think it's overused, but that's from a separate thread so... moving on.


Well, "attack" changes the terms a little.

I will argue with anyone over anything over which we have a disagreement, if they'll let me. That's how I am. I will argue particularly aggressively against positions that I think are absurd, irrational, immoral, and socially harmful, like opposition to homosexuality. When somebody, as far as I can tell, is unwilling to have a rational discussion about such a topic (or even to think rationally about it), but still feels free to express their bigotry publicly and offensively, sometimes I will mock and insult them instead, to diminish the social power of bigotry and, potentially, to get them to mount a real defense of their point of view.

What you fail to see is that "tolerance" is not a universal constant we should apply universally, without regard for context or circumstance.


True, but then I think it behooves one to at least listen objectively until context and circumstance are established. Knee-jerk reactions don't help.


Actually, I didn't, but since I'm against belief imposition anyway I'll clarify the distinction here.

When I call someone a bigot, that's not imposing my belief at all, that's stating it. When I advance an argument to indicate that someone is a bigot, that's not imposing my belief either, it's attempting to convince someone to accept it. When I mock someone for being offensively bigoted, if that person actually holds by their bigotry on a reasonable basis (insofar as such a thing is possible) I don't think my mockery will change their mind--so that isn't imposing my belief, either.


Except that a refusal to discuss a subject reasonably can be viewed as imposing, since it typically carries with it demands and orders. You can see it in this thread where people demand that I answer their questions a certain way or insist that I must accept their interpretation of things.


You're wrong to think that these two are somehow equivalent. A bigot is a perfectly legitimate description for a wide variety of people. But it's never right to call someone a fag--outside of certain particular contexts where its social meaning is different, anyway.


I'll grant you that, but in return I want you to acknowledge that the word 'bigot' can also be used in exactly the same mentality and anger as 'fag.'


He's free to act as he likes. But some of us aren't particularly fond of condescending tolerance.


What do you mean by 'condescending tolerance?'


I do have friends who have moral problems with homosexuality, and we do get along fine, after a fashion. (One in particular told me, before I came out to him, that all gays were destined for hell, and deserved it. I didn't take that well.) But I hate silent disapproval. To be honest, I'd rather get condemnation: it's something I can hear, something I can argue with, something we can resolve. Because I don't think such a situation is ideal. I'd rather work beyond it. On the selfish material level, I'd rather not deal with the inevitable awkwardness that creeps in--"Should I say this in front of him or not?"--and on the ideal level, I'd rather know people who disapprove of my real faults, not my manufactured ones.


I understand that completely, which is why I value those relationships I alluded to earlier. In fact, just today a gay co-worker of mine started ribbing me (In what I took to be good-natured) about a recent statement from my Church regarding gay marriage. He and I are on opposite ends of the morality of that subject, but it's great that it can be talked about openly. All that's needed is some mutual respect, and the understanding that it isn't necessary to change each other's minds.


We are not obligated to avoid voicing our opposition to views and behaviors we think are wrong. But we are obligated to make our judgments of right and wrong rationally, on good faith. All I have noted is that opposition to homosexuality is so absurd as to fairly clearly not stem from that kind of judgment.


You lost me at that last line, bit otherwise I agree. The thing is, if you want to have an open an honest discussion with someone then one MUST be diplomatic. If one won't be diplomatic, then how can anyone be expected to listen to them openly?


We can never reach an ideal world. But we can work towards one. (Tolerance, too, is an ideal, and our world falls far short of it also.)


Agreed


Who said anything about "get along"?


You don't see a value in making the effort to build bridges?


It's not unanimity I'm after, it's rightness. I think there are multiple right answers to many ethical questions. But there are also wrong ones.

I care about the moral well-being of others: I want them to come to right moral conclusions and do what is right, because that is the best, the truest kind of freedom. I'm not willing to get them to do so "by any means necessary"--that was a joke--because I also want them to get there for the right reasons: because their rationality demands it, not because I have forced it upon them. That's what it means to respect another's autonomy--not a vulgar tolerance that makes every view equal, regardless of its support. (This qualification, too, means that it's not my opinion I'm promoting, but reason itself. If I can't effectively support my view, then no one has any reason to accept it.)


Alright, but know that what you view as moral behavior and what I view as moral behavior ain't even in the same freakin' Solar System ;) Would I then, be justified in aggressively going after you (or anyone) under the justification that it's for their own good?

My sister used to use that justification to Biblethump me for being a Mormon.

The thing is, I firmly believe that each person must be allowed to figure out their moral code on their own. We must be there to answer questions and explain things when called upon to do so, but to be aggressive in our approach is to flirt with zealotry.


It is strange that I'm explaining this to you. In my experience, it is something that social conservatives often get better than social liberals.


I think in your own way you are a Conservative thinker. (I mean that in a good way :) )


I don't listen to Limbaugh at all, but I think I have the rational capacity to make fairly unprejudiced judgments of when something is and is not bigoted. I've defended others against accusations of bigotry that I thought were unfounded, even despite not being particularly fond of them.

Regardless, this is not the issue. If the hypothetical Limbaugh-listening child of mine said that Limbaugh was not, after all, bigoted, and advanced an argument, I would listen to it, and if it was convincing I would change my mind.


I think it would be very difficult to claim objectivity in a discussion about whether or not Rush is a racist without having listened to him. I'm not saying you'd have to be a fan, but if you never listen, then how can you claim to be knowledgeable enough for such a position?

I mean, it's great that you'd listen to your kid's arguments, but it seems to me that if you've never listened to Limbaugh at all, your baseline should be neutral, not opposition.


Good for you. But don't you see that this is exactly what I am proposing to do? Was explaining this "imposing your beliefs"? Was it intolerant?


I dunno. Some could argue that it was, as I scolded him for his intolerance. How is that fundamentally different from a hypothetical scenario in which I scold him for wearing a dress? In both cases I'd be 'imposing' a set of values on him.


Not at all. If you have a moral opposition to homosexuality, one as profound as I have to homophobia, then you should absolutely go ahead and state your views, make your argument.

My point is that this truth doesn't excuse you from having such an opposition in the first place.


I find the wording here curious. One needs an excuse to hold a belief?


You'll have to do better than that, sorry.





Of course not! But I suppose that my opinions, and all others, are subject to the same rules of reason that establish 1 + 1 = 2, and that's the authority I use in judging them.

I'd disagree on that. 1+1=2 is a universal truth regardless of your worldview. This is definitely not the same.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796580&postcount=208

If it helps. :)

It did, thanks.

You know what? I've had this experience in the discussion we're having right now. I've carefully made distinctions, clarified their basis, and gotten back accusations of hypocrisy and double standards.

But I believe at keeping at it, at least for a while.


I hope this doesn't come across as excuse mongering, but you must understand that while you have the luxury of debating against me alone (at least for the moment) I've got easily a half dozen people to reply to off and on. Some of it blends together. Cut me some slack, will ya?


Well, if you made an actual argument, I probably wouldn't actually call you one, unless it came up, but yes, I would think you were.

Unfortunate. You do realize that's a form of prejudice?


However, you've gotten it entirely backwards. I don't call people bigots to ignore their arguments. Indeed, even when I think someone is a bigot, I respond to their arguments if they make an attempt at reasonableness, if there's some substance to respond to. The reason I call people opposed to homosexuality bigots is because, having had this argument innumerable times, I have yet to see any real justification for their opposition that isn't founded in prejudice.

Just out of curiosity, and forgive me if this has been made plain and I've misunderstood, are you gay?


But that doesn't mean I've become close-minded. I'm still willing to listen, even to people I think are bigots. If someone can come up with an alternative argument, a convincing one, well, that would be a reason to change my mind. My judgment on this question is provisional.


I find it very difficult to accept that a person who is so quick to perceive bigotry can be that objective. I'm not questioning your honesty, but it all strikes me as a bit too ideal.


Of course, I haven't actually done any of the above, except maybe "insulted you personally", and even there it's ambiguous--accusing someone of bigotry can be insulting, but the same is true of accusing someone of hypocrisy, which you seem to think doesn't count. Both of them, of course, concern someone's views, and as such, I think, are fair game.


Touche' I apologize then, for lumping you in with the hypocrites. Fair?


Wait. You are the one who has accused me of being intolerant and close-minded. I don't believe I've accused you of anything of the sort.

To the first, that's the sense I got from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796419&postcount=183) post. To the second, I think the act of calling someone bigoted handles that rather well.


The thing is, just like before, what you just said applies very well from my perspective: I have made a serious effort to understand where you are coming from, and responded to your arguments accordingly. From the fact that my rather strong opinions on this topic haven't changed, you seem to conclude that I am somehow intolerant and close-minded... but this, I think, is an error of interpretation of exactly the sort of which you speak.


But here's the thing. When you come out tossing out terms like 'bigot' that does NOT present the appearance of someone who's open to discussion on the subject.


Well, I could ask you to justify it, and you could provide a justification, and I could challenge it, and you could respond to my challenge. And so forth.


So what sort of proof would be sufficient to prove the validity of a perspective that you don't share?


I don't think I've indicated a "categorical" anything. I'd like to know exactly which statements of mine you're talking about.

This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796419&postcount=183)


They're not. A meter of moral high ground to you.

No, really, what's your point? Do you want me to realize that people can be mean sometimes, even liberals? That doesn't exactly come as news to me. Most people aren't perfect; most people don't always live up to their own ideals. But making constant accusations of hypocrisy is a kind of ad hominem argument--just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean that a particular viewpoint of theirs is wrong.


Hypocrisy is one of my pet peeves. It rapidly unravels a good discussion because it's just a complete and total block to objectivity and communication. But like I said, if you haven't done it then forgive me, but a lot of your 'allies' have absolutely done so and it tends to run together.


But by the same reasoning you shouldn't be interfering with the freedom of your children to get their faces painted like princesses.


Not by the same reasoning at all. They're my children, therefore it is my DUTY to guide them and make judgment calls for them.


Perhaps not. But, then, however "vitriolic" it may sound, it doesn't make the person who states it intolerant.

I don't agree. When someone uses a vitriolic and nasty approach, they're not being tolerant of their target at all.

But I was hoping you'd bring this up. There was a study done back in the mid 90s. If I can find a link to it I'll post it for you because I think it was very interesting and you probably would as well. They wanted to see of sexual identity was inborn or cultural so they took a group of kids who had been raised by people who would agree with you, raising them as if they were neither male or female and all that... and put them in a room with two toyboxes. One contained trucks, cars, airplanes, etc... all that stereotypical 'boy' toy stuff. The other box contained dolls, dollhouses, clothing, etc... all that stereotypical 'girl' clothing stuff... and let the kids play with whatever they wanted.

It might surprise you to learn that the boys, through *no* external conditioning, went for the 'boy' toybox and the girls went to the 'girl' toybox.

Bummer, huh?

That's interesting, because as a primary school teacher, I interact with a lot of young children. We often had what we called "free time fridays" where the kids got to choose their own toys and games as a reward for doing work and following rules all week. Now, keep in mind these children weren't raised "gender neutral", at least not the majority of them. They come from a multitude of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds.

My observations? Everybody, and I mean everybody, loves legos (no surprise). Do girls play with dollhouses? Yep. Know what else? Some boys do, too. Do boys play with fire trucks? Sure. Know that else? I've had to break up fights over the fire truck between a boy and a girl before.

In one of my kindergarten classes, there was for a brief time a very popular game among several boys unofficially called "let's try to kiss Jonathan". While I had my suspicions about Jonathan, I don't think most of the boys were homosexual. They just thought it was funny to try to kiss him and make him laugh. It didn't seem illogical to them as men or (likely) heterosexuals, it was a game. Of course, I stopped them because kissing anybody in class is not appropriate, but I also explained it in those terms--I didn't say "It's wrong because you're all boys."

Just like to point out that clothing preference has nothing what so ever to do with anything "natural". Our default state is bare-assed nekkid.

Can you explain these in greater detail?


In cases where I've seen kids with these 'gender neutral' efforts they're always the ones who don't quite mesh with the other kids. It's almost as if they don't know how to behave so they just sit there and try to emulate the others, and poorly. They excel at nothing wheras the children with a stronger sense of themselves are much more comfortable with themselves and have a much easier time socializing with others.

There's one example I'm reminded of in particular of a kid who is the son of a former friend of mine whose wife insisted that this boy be encouraged to play with dolls as much as fire trucks. Oh he played with dolls and fire trucks, and couldn't for the life of him understand just why my sons preferred to run around the yard being normal boys. It was as if he were completely confused about what to do. So he stumbled around the play equipment and despite repeated efforts by my sons to engage him in play he seemed more afraid than anything else. Self confidence can be intimidating to those who don't have it.

So later on, he started to develop behavioral issues and even physically attacked my young daughter, who was less than a year old at the time. Mind you, my sons are VERY protective of their little sister but despite that their response was not a violent one. They physically restrained him (in spite of a desire to tear his head off) until his mother arrived to take charge, thus averting further harm to their sister.

I was immensely proud of them for this. They saw a problem, took nonviolent steps to solve it, and demonstrated confidence and self discipline.

Mind you, this child I'm describing has NOT been diagnosed with any behavioral disorders, medical conditions, or mental illness. My understanding is that lately he's had much more interaction with other male children whose parents treated them like *gasp* boys and he's doing much better.


Only when I feel it's adversely affecting them.

Got any examples off the top of your head?

As a matter of fact, yes, you did.

I don't think I'll bother.
You posted an opinion, cried discrimination when the opinion was attacked rather than defend it, and go on refusing to discuss it. So what's the point?

I'm not sure what you get out of it, but I hope you enjoy this kind of wasting time...

Yes yes yes I'm sure you're completely right and I'm just a fool who should count himself lucky to have you around to tell him what he means when he speaks.

That's interesting, because as a primary school teacher, I interact with a lot of young children. We often had what we called "free time fridays" where the kids got to choose their own toys and games as a reward for doing work and following rules all week. Now, keep in mind these children weren't raised "gender neutral", at least not the majority of them. They come from a multitude of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds.

My observations? Everybody, and I mean everybody, loves legos (no surprise). Do girls play with dollhouses? Yep. Know what else? Some boys do, too. Do boys play with fire trucks? Sure. Know that else? I've had to break up fights over the fire truck between a boy and a girl before.

In one of my kindergarten classes, there was for a brief time a very popular game among several boys unofficially called "let's try to kiss Jonathan". While I had my suspicions about Jonathan, I don't think most of the boys were homosexual. They just thought it was funny to try to kiss him and make him laugh. It didn't seem illogical to them as men or (likely) heterosexuals, it was a game. Of course, I stopped them because kissing anybody in class is not appropriate, but I also explained it in those terms--I didn't say "It's wrong because you're all boys."

Ok. I find nothing strange or unusual in anything you said, but implicit in your description of what toys the children chose, there seems to be an indication that the majority of boys and girls tended toward the toys they'd stereotypically be expected to play with.

Just like to point out that clothing preference has nothing what so ever to do with anything "natural". Our default state is bare-assed nekkid.

You, sir, win this argument.

*bows*

*snip*

So basically, based on a single empirical experience, you choose to generalize and attribute a cause-and-effect phenomenon upon gender-neutrality and behavioral problems, because once in your life you've seen a kid who'd been raised without enforcing gender stereotypes that happened to behave without much self-confidence?

Wrong. My mind has been changed on here, several times.

Agreed. I've changed my mind about things because of this forum.

Rush Limbaugh is was the first of the big Conservative Talk Radio personalities, and since he has a tendency to tell it like it is, people who like him, like him a LOT and people who don't, hate him.

"Like it is" and "like he sees it" are two very different things. It's attempts like this to turn opinion into fact that are obnoxious.

Ok. I find nothing strange or unusual in anything you said, but implicit in your description of what toys the children chose, there seems to be an indication that the majority of boys and girls tended toward the toys they'd stereotypically be expected to play with.
Well, yeah. As Ry noted, those kids weren't brought up in a gender-neutral world.

From the day a baby is born, they're color-coded. I was put in a pink jumper in the hospital nursery, and my brother got blue. Friends of the family gave us very different toys for our birthdays.

When I was growing up, people would say things like, "Oh, aren't you pretty!" When my brother was growing up, people would say, "What a strong little man!"

When I was about seven, my mom was watching Saturday morning cartoons with me, and remarked on how none of the Lego toy commercials had any girls in them. She was right.

Gendering of kids starts at birth, in my culture. Kids are bathed in gender stereotypes all the time. It's no surprise that this has an impact on their behavior.

It would stand to reason that a certain amount of sexual and gender identity is genetic or otherwise built-in. If that is the case, a parent would not need to restrict choices, as the child would make the right choices without any external guidance.

But you seem to be saying that children need such guidance in order not to be confused about such roles. If that is what you believe, I have a question.

Do you have any reason to believe that children do get confused in such situations? The experiment you brought up seems to indicate that they do not suffer any confusion even when they are in an artificially gender-free environment.


Yah I just wrote out a story to Smunkee that is one example I've noted.


Self-esteem can also be negatively affected when one's internal identity is repressed by processes such as socialisation. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this confusion of which you speak is more harmful than such repression?

Your question seems predicated on the idea that the internal identity is fully formed at that age. I do not think it's complete yet, so it would be hard to answer your question in the spirit in which it's asked.


I can see how it would be harder to socialise someone who has experienced an environment where they have not been subject to such pressures. However, you seem to imply that this is a bad thing.


Not sure I understand what you mean here.


And finally, confidence. I would argue that restricting a child's choices instead of respecting their space in which to make such choices would be more destructive of a child's growing confidence. Your mileage may vary.

Well, every parent has to make a judgment call on that.


No one is asking you to defend your sons choosing to dress in traditionally male costumes.

You're being asked to defend your statement that you would not allow them to choose otherwise.


Actually, it's been implied that on some level my sons chose knight costumes because they'd already been locked into the male mode (the horror) and that's why they chose the knight costume. So yes, I am.


We're expecting others - parents in particular - to defend their choices to impose things on their children.


Impose. Great word. Very scary sounding. "We will impose a tight curfew on all citizens until the separatists have been apprehended!"

You call it 'imposing' in that typical emotional hyperbole that I've come to love whenever I see your name on a post. I call it guidance, as I've never had to use any sort of force in this area whatsoever.


It's sort of like how people who want to make laws have to defend their choice to do so. The person placing the restriction is the one with the need to back it up.


Actually, that being the baseline, YOU are the one who needs to back up your assertion that somehow I'm not doing it right. The status quo is what you're seeking to change.


Why?

Why should a person who doesn't fit the traditional "masculine" or "feminine" mold try to change or hide themselves to suit you - even if they are your children?


To suit me? Why do you keep trying to make this about me? You seem to be asserting an awful lot of knowledge about 4 children whom you've never even met.

Number of times I've been told my children are very impressive: Lost count
Number of times my kids have been criticized by others: 0
(Except minor academic issues during teacher conferences)

Yeah I think I'll stick with my method, thanks.


The "norm" for men as a whole is to be attracted to women. The "norm" for women as a whole is to be attracted to men. Your brother is outside of the "masculine" norm.


Oh? Are you saying that the norm for a homosexual man is to be effeminate? Or that an effeminate man is normally homosexual?


Not at all, although there are people opposed to it who equate the two. There are certainly straight people who feel more comfortable in clothing seen as being appropriate for the other sex.

Correct. So why have I been labeled a homophobe in this thread, exactly?


I find it interesting, though, that you're ok with a man being so far outside the norm that he is attracted to other men and chooses his partners accordingly, but you're somehow very offended by a man liking "women's" clothing and thus choosing his clothing accordingly.


Who said I was ok with it? I just have a pretty good idea of what I can and can't control. if my kid grows up to be a cross dresser I have no more control over it than I do his sexuality.

Would you do me a favor and base your arguments on stuff I actually said? I'd really appreciate it.


Since when is "trying to convince them otherwise" intolerant?

Does that mean I am intolerant of people who are voting for John McCain when I argue in favor of Obama?


Depends on your approach. Let's have a little exercise here:

"So I heard you plan to vote for McCain. How come? You know, his policies will only keep us in Iraq until the end of time, and probably get us mixed up in Iran too. Not to mention the fact that I'm not real sure about his stand on things like gay marriage but being as he's a Republican you can be sure he's not likely to be as open to it as Obama will... And don't even get me started on health care!"

"You're voting for McCain? Are you some kind of nutjob? I guess you must be, since you're voting Republican after 8 years of Bush. Why are you offended? It's perfectly acceptable to refer to someone, who's in favor of everlasting war, oppressing homosexuals and letting the poor die horribly from a lack of care as you seem to be, as a nutjob. I bet you're a homophobe too. You must be to support a Conservative for President. Where are you going? I'm not being unreasonable..."

If the second paragraph sounds reasonable and tolerant to you, then you really have a problem.


So you think the world is a better place when people are looked down upon and asked to change when they are simply expressing their own identities in a way that harms no one?

Looked down upon? Of course not. Strawman.


You think it is better to make it clear to your child that you will not accept him for who he is and that he must change to please yo, rather than to celebrate him as he is?

I've made that clear to him? Hm. must have been one of those apparently innumerable moments when I was having an out-of-body moment but luckily you were there to keep tabs on what I said. Strawman.


You think the best situation is to arbitrarily pick "male" and "female" things and then enforce that standard just because you need a standard to enforce?

Yeah, I just need a standard to enforce.

Where do you get this stuff? Honestly? Are you reading it off an index card or something? "How to argue against people who let boys be boys and girls be girls and don't feel ashamed of it."

Hey Dem, do me a favor, stop presuming to tell me how to be a parent. When you've got 4 kids and 15+ years' experience under your belt, I'll be able to take you seriously. Until then, this is uninformed hyperbole.

All 3 of my older kids are straight A students, well adjusted, and have healthy and active social interactions (mostly with kids who do NOT share their religious upbringing). My oldest is on a Summer trip to NYC to participate in a business education trip, is building his College resume, and is perfectly comfortable confiding in me on all kinds of personal (normal adolescent) issues that I'll not go into here. My middle son also has a very close relationship with me and confides in me at a level far beyond what I could have hoped for. He too has goals and plans to become a mechanical engineer. My daughter has just completed a stage production as one of her Summer activities after an incredibly successful academic year at school. Our relationship was strained after the divorce but the recovery is now almost complete and has never been better.

And my baby daughter is well on her way to being yet another success. My record as a parent speaks for itself, and I owe neither you nor anyone else any apologies, explanations or concessions. I defy you to do as well with yours when you've got 'em. So go ahead. Keep amusing me with your 'constructive criticism' and keep admonishing me about how much better my kids would have turned out if I weren't such a controlling overlord. I like you because you make me laugh.

I'm honestly rather befuddled by a lot of the claims in this thread.

If gender differences are so "innate," then why do children need to be taught to adhere to them?

If a boy is "naturally" going to want to be "masculine," then why would a boy ask to wear traditionally "feminine" clothing and need to be told that he cannot do so?

Why would a girl need to be told that she is supposed to behave like a girl, or prefer girl toys, if her femaleness innately makes her want to be feminine?

And if these qualities are not innate, then why are we forcing children to adhere to them?

I'm honestly rather befuddled by a lot of the claims in this thread.

If gender differences are so "innate," then why do children need to be taught to adhere to them?

If a boy is "naturally" going to want to be "masculine," then why would a boy ask to wear traditionally "feminine" clothing and need to be told that he cannot do so?

Why would a girl need to be told that she is supposed to behave like a girl, or prefer girl toys, if her femaleness innately makes her want to be feminine?

And if these qualities are not innate, then why are we forcing children to adhere to them?

Because nothing freaks out a straight guy like finding out they're hitting on a tranny.

"Like it is" and "like he sees it" are two very different things. It's attempts like this to turn opinion into fact that are obnoxious.

While I agree completely with the sentiment you're expressing here, I find that while Rush does do that to an extent, he hits the bullseye far more often than he misses it.



So basically, based on a single empirical experience, you choose to generalize and attribute a cause-and-effect phenomenon upon gender-neutrality and behavioral problems, because once in your life you've seen a kid who'd been raised without enforcing gender stereotypes that happened to behave without much self-confidence?

I said that was ONE example I'd seen. You want into this argument? Read what's written. I do NOT have time to repeat myself.

Well, yeah. As Ry noted, those kids weren't brought up in a gender-neutral world.

From the day a baby is born, they're color-coded. I was put in a pink jumper in the hospital nursery, and my brother got blue. Friends of the family gave us very different toys for our birthdays.

When I was growing up, people would say things like, "Oh, aren't you pretty!" When my brother was growing up, people would say, "What a strong little man!"

When I was about seven, my mom was watching Saturday morning cartoons with me, and remarked on how none of the Lego toy commercials had any girls in them. She was right.

Gendering of kids starts at birth, in my culture. Kids are bathed in gender stereotypes all the time. It's no surprise that this has an impact on their behavior.

In the study I'm mentioning, those external factors weren't present. I don't know how that was done, as it's been awhile since I read it, but they were careful.

For a related study go to the beginning of the thread, a couple pages in where a study was done monkeys who were NOT culturally tainted and exhibited similar behavior.