No boys, no girls
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
By 8th grade they should learn there are no such things as dragons. So all the water is left.
By 8th grade they should learn there are no such things as dragons. So all the water is left.
Using common core, that would be the correct answer.
Exactly how many nations have put it to a vote? We haven't, it's left to the states, where legislation gets passed without considering what the constituents actually want. [ALEC sound familiar?]
And among the nations that also didn't legalize it after a popular vote, how many have had any kind of backlash, or unrest because of it? None that I know of.
Abnormal conduct that hurts no one [just offends some, primarily for religious reasons] should not be grounds for legal discrimination. We never gave that a second thought, in all the years that the "abnormal" people kept it hidden, afraid to risk their jobs, homes, [you name it, they could lose it] - but now that they are saying "Why?" and we are seeing them as who they always were, our families, friends, coworkers, heroes, even, we are asking "Why?" too. And the answers don't justify the sacrifices - theirs or ours.
What might people like Alan Turing have accomplished, if they hadn't been hounded unto death? How many more do we know nothing about?
You are partially correct: there isn't much science [so far] in the field. Is that surprising, though? There also isn't much science involved in developing drugs that considers how they affect women, because nearly all the testing has been done on men. Politics rules!
There is some science, however, such as the following link, and there will absolutely be more. I'm perfectly happy with accepting whatever is found - if it turns out that transsexuals are just hysterics, well, ok. But I don't think that's what will happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7689007.stm
PS Why does teaching about gender identity mean skimping on such essentials as STEM subjects, and other important things? Why can't students learn as much as can be crammed into them?
PPS I figured out the math problem easily, and I'm dam near innumerate, lol. [I do basic math easily, but don't speak algebra or geometry any more than Urdu.] Tell me something I want is on sale for 25% off, I know the answer in microseconds, lol.
Not including the US, in which several states have put it to a vote, exactly seventeen countries, including Britain, Spain and France, have defeated same sex marriage by popular vote.
Well, we have, too just not in a national vote, because the federal government doesn't control and regulate marriages, the states do. Thirty times same sex marriage has been defeated by popular vote in the US. In three of those states (Maryland, Maine and Washington), Democratic legislators with the necessary majority threatened to overturn the vote with legislation, and in those states sane sex marriage was later passed by popular vote, but not with the same criteria in the proposal legislation. Basically,the voters said, 'if this is gonna happen, it's gonna happen our way." In most of the other states where sane sex marriage was defeated by popular vote, and the vote has been overturned by judges, and by legislation that dismissed what the constituents wanted.We haven't, it's left to the states, where legislation gets passed without considering what the constituents actually want. [ALEC sound familiar?]
Every one of them actually.
Discrimination against sometime for what they are is one thing, but against what they do is another thing entirely. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against behavior. It's what stable, durable societies are founded upon.
I would address those questions, but I don't want to be sucked into a quagmire by logical fallacy deflection.
No, it's not surprising at all. Social agendas are almost never accompanied or supported by science.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? A) to make such a statement in the context of social agenda change and in the context of this conversation is a whopper of logical fallacy, B) is not even true, and C) even if it were true it wouldn't be political.
Well, that's a study, funded in large part by the Gender Identity Research and Education Society, a special interest group with an agenda, too find a biological reason for transsexualism, in order to show they were wrote literally born that way so a to shut up the morons who believe transsexualism (and homosexuality) are lifestyle choices that someone makes. At this point the study is a working hypothesis, yet to be duplicated and peer reviewed. There was no smoking gun gene found, only that there was greater likelihoods and probabilities, based on, as is stated in the article, speculation.
Good question. I'm quite sure that educators will cite the finite number of school hours in a day. Over the last 40 years or so, as more and more politically motivated courses have entered the curriculum, STEM fields study has been reduced and/or consolidated into capsulized, one-size-fits-all courses. For example, Geography and World Civilizations are often combined, resulting in students learning very little about either.
That's actually a math problem from an eighth grade finals exam from an Appalachian school in 1923. The exam is on display at the Museum of Appalachia in Clinton, TN. A few years ago the same test was administered to all students grades 8 through 12 in a school district in Knoxville, and the results were embarrassingly abysmal (or certainly should have been for educators).PPS I figured out the math problem easily, and I'm dam near innumerate, lol. [I do basic math easily, but don't speak algebra or geometry any more than Urdu.] Tell me something I want is on sale for 25% off, I know the answer in microseconds, lol.
Science is highly political - in the Eisenhower era, it was all about benefiting mankind [and beating the Russians, lol. Benefiting mankind doesn't play so well today, the potential for scoring major bucks is what attracts funding. Still, the research into gay/trans issues is getting done, and the markers are showing that there are differences, most likely related to prenatal hormonal activity. I don't expect any quick progress - recalling how long it took to determine that ulcers were caused by a bacteria, it could be decades yet. But even that study was 5 years ago, I could probably find more [and more conclusive], but what's important is that it didn't rule out a genetic or prenatal foundation - that's big, IMO.
Science has always been dominated by men, too, [though women are moving in, slowly], which is why important studies and research was mostly related to what interested and affected men, but that's changing, and that's due to a "social agenda change" the same as gay rights. Now that more women are getting into the field, we might learn whether all the drugs developed for major health problems [cardiac, especially] have the same efficacy & side effects on women as on men. Absent a social agenda, [getting women into the field], it probably wouldn't have happened. You don't think social agendas are political matters?
Whatever backlash or unrest occurred in countries that legalized gay marriage wasn't terribly newsworthy, as it didn't register even a blip on what I read.
Of course we discriminate against behaviors - but discrimination against people whose private behavior offends some of us doesn't contribute to a stable durable society. It contributes to perpetuating discrimination in a negative way, and it harms more than it could ever benefit us, as a society.
We know there's only so many hours in a school day, and we need to focus on what actually prepares kids to be productive and successful adults. I think there's a lot that they're not getting enough of, but after the right wing push for more state control, 'education' is largely all over the place as far as curricula. That's what Common Core was meant to eliminate, but it's not doing well because [surprise!] the conservatives don't like it. They would prefer home schooling or charter schools. [A way to get in religion, and keep out comprehensive sex education, I suspect.]
It's a mess, all right, but it's one that needs to be addressed, because for the most part: Americans are relatively stupid.
Uhm, no. Science gets exploited for political (and many other) reasons, but the science itself isn't political at all. I promise you, gravity doesn't depend on whether you are liberal or conservative or independent. As for science benefiting mankind, that's mostly how science has been used. But science itself is about understanding the natural world and how it all works. What is learned from science is what benefits mankind. The research for science is political, or it certainly can be. The primary motivators of scientific research and discovery have always been curiosity, political and financial.
The research into it has taken place because it's long been suspected that gender and sexual orientation happens largely because of certain hormones firing off at specific times during fetal development. The research is being done by some to prove those suspicions, and by others to disprove them (both using science for political reasons), but in the end the science will affirm or refute the hypothesis as it is, regardless of how pleased or displeased someone might be about the truth.
That's not true at all. If it were we'd all be wearing brown and white ribbons to support prostate and colon cancer research instead of pink ribbons to support breast cancer research. Most of the scientific medical research over the last 100 years has been devoted, by men, to protecting women and children.