Bless your heart, snowflake
Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.
Children have no rights to learn.
Unbelievable.
That's the best counterargument you've got? Okay.
What counterargument ?
There is nothing to debate.
Your post was full of anecdotal piffle.
Please explain your statement that children have no right to learn?Bless your heart, snowflake
Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.
Children have no rights to learn.
Unbelievable.
Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.
Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes. Most crimes deal with behaviors that are very uncommon. Murder is not common, &the vast majority of people wouldn't murder people. To want to have a law that addresses a low percentage criminal behavior is not wrong. It's normal.
Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.
Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.
With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.
The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?
My irony meter just exploded. You love to toss it out but when someone turns that same crap on you you are outraged and demand that it be stopped because your feelin's got hurt. Stop doing it to others and allowing vulnerable minorities to be attacked.I watched an episode of family Guy last night and I saw this sequence and it summed up the way we treat LGBT people and I don't like it.
Do whatever you want all the time because saying anything but that you will be called transphobic there is a point where we as people need to stop caring about this stupid name calling crap.
Explain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.
Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept. But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.
Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.
Mahar is and has always been a little asshole.Bless your heart, snowflake
Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.
Children have no rights to learn.
Unbelievable.
Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes. Most crimes deal with behaviors that are very uncommon. Murder is not common, &the vast majority of people wouldn't murder people. To want to have a law that addresses a low percentage criminal behavior is not wrong. It's normal.
Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.
Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.
With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.
The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?
Because someone does not agree with you does not make them trasphobic.Explain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.
Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept.
But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.
That doesn’t sound very factual.When I look and see the hate speech used against transgender people, it feels like deja vu. "There's something wrong with them," "they're 'grooming kids," "stop with the agenda," and other disgusting lies have all been used against gay people.
Now that gays have a lot more rights, one would think that social conservatives would get over themselves, grow up, and learn to accept. But that is not what social cons do. They simply find a new target. Their current favorites to hate are transgender and nonbinary people, using the same hate speech they did against gays with only the slightest variation in tactics.
Worse, the social cons won't even admit when they are wrong. Their lies against gay people were debunked over and over and over again, yet they continued to push them up until the point where it became socially unacceptable to do so, and you still, even now, hear those old lies from time to time. Then the social cons switch targets, to trans people, falsely accusing them of stalking kids in public restrooms, so we got a whole wave of laws on that. There was no evidence that even suggested this was a problem! So what did the social cons do? Instead of folding their losing hand, they targeted trans women athletes, and now, their favorite target, schools again. They want to deny children their RIGHT to learn in a healthy, compassionate, age-appropriate manner that LGBTQ people are real and valid. There is no more danger to a child learning about two men who love each other than learning about a woman who loves a man, and it is pure pathology to suggest otherwise. These social cons have never cared and will never care about the additional dangers that trans and nonbinary people are forced to go through all the time. If they did care, then they would cease being social cons. As an ex-social-con myself, I would know.
Sounds like the Yale yahoo’sExplain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
It's up to you. You raised a bunch of issues, and I addressed them.Explain to me why I should read that transphobic wall of text.
I picture the shouting Yale students. They don’t want to hear it. Darkness hates light. It exposes them.It's up to you. You raised a bunch of issues, and I addressed them.
The post isn't transphobic, by the way. You'd know that if you read it.
The whole concept of public education is fundamentally about a child's right to have access to learning, regardless of their or their parents circumstance or choice. Thats why we insist that parents either send their kids to school or provide them with home schooling. The only real question becomes how broad should the required curriculum be and what should it include. I can't imagine many topics dealing with their bodies, their health, or their minds and their health that I don't think kids should learn about and I do not distinguish between sex, and nutrition or the circulatory system, or what happens inside the human brain, or gender dysphoria it's symptoms and treatment. 'Age appropriate education' to me, means get the job done before they graduate with that high school diploma.Bless your heart, snowflake
Even Bill Mahar disagrees with you.
Children have no rights to learn.
Unbelievable.
It happens here and there. https://flfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Predators-under-SOGI-Laws.pdfYour first paragraph is ridiculous. I have two daughters, for the record.
The point is they're not being attacked. You want them to be a victim so you can feel like a hero.My irony meter just exploded. You love to toss it out but when someone turns that same crap on you you are outraged and demand that it be stopped because your feelin's got hurt. Stop doing it to others and allowing vulnerable minorities to be attacked.
The issue of transwomen in the ladies' room doesn't introduce anything new. Pedophiles could still dress up like women and take advantage whether the restroom is trans-friendly or not.Thee issue of transwomen in the ladies' room was not about accusing them of being abusers to any greater degree than any non-trans. The point was that people who aren't really trans could claim to be trans for that purpose, and that the criminal males who would try to do something with kids would take advantage of that. And, that's not a myth. It's not a majority behavior, but then again neither are most crimes.
I agree with this, it seems really selfish on the part of the trans athlete. Sports organizations do have hormone threshold requirements but I still don't think it's fair.Regarding transwomen competing against biological females in sports, the issue is real, and males have a significant advantage over females. It's not an irrational concern. It's legitimate, and as a father of two young daughters, I reject the notion that my concern for my daughters' futures is either a pretext for bigotry or a function of hatred of trans people.
Well, it seems pretty mundane to me if they only talk about basics like some kids have two dads or two moms. There's no need to go into any details of sexual activity though. Sometimes it seems like parents fear that their kids might be shown hardcore gay porn in the classroom or something.Schools - again, as a parent of 2 young children, I have an understanding of what "age appropriate" means, and there is no "age appropriate" discussion of sex in the kindergarten, first, second or third grade classroom, and that includes any sexual orientation (not just homosexuality, but heterosexuality), and the issue of "gender identity" is likewise not an appropriate topic for my first grader or my third grader. I would vote that the curriculum not include any such topics.
With respect to the curriculum in Kindergarten, neither of my daughters had classroom discussions with the teacher, or a lesson presented, involving sex, orientation or gender identity. Further, the kindergarten teachers are generally not qualified to "teach" these subjects. Moreover, what an activist wants "taught" to K-3 kids is far different than what I would want taught.
The main thrust of K-3 education is reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, simple history, simple science, some foreign language (in the US, generally Spanish), art, music and physical education. There is no reason to be talking to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader about genderqeer identities, drag queens, or suggesting that if they like to try on mom's shoes they might really be a girl, not a boy. And in order to discuss "sexual orientation" the teacher would have to let the kids know what "sex" is and what it means to have sex, and then the issue of which way a person is "oriented" could take place. These are complex topics, fraught with emotion and psychological implications. It isn't "phobia" to be concerned about what the 2d grade teacher might want to teach. The LGBT lobby should also be concerned - bc it might not be blue-haired gender studies minor doing the teaching - it might be the devout, orthodox, religious teacher who doesn't agree with any of the LGBT lobby's ideas. Are you going to not only demand that this stuff be "taught," but then also control what exactly is taught in the classroom so it aligns with the LGBT lobby's views? If so, why does that faction get a say about what is taught and when, but the rest of us don't?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?