No boys, no girls

[LDB]

Leave it to post grad fools vastly overpopulating all areas of education to come up with more and more idiocy. It's no wonder we are falling farther and farther behind when we have no educating going on, just indoctrinating.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...s-there-s-no-such-thing-as-boys-or-girls.html

 

[Turtle]

In an ironic twist, the Religious Right will be thumping the science and biology books on this one.

 

[cheri1122]

Leave it to post grad fools vastly overpopulating all areas of education to come up with more and more idiocy. It's no wonder we are falling farther and farther behind when we have no educating going on, just indoctrinating.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...s-there-s-no-such-thing-as-boys-or-girls.html

Indoctrination is teaching what one would like to be true, no matter how much evidence accrues against it. Conservatives don't like change, granted, but it's just stupid to ignore what science has learned, because it goes against what we thought we knew. Intelligence is accepting that knowledge changes, when additional facts are known. Learning is never finished, ever, for anyone - except conservatives.
Maybe we're falling behind because conservatives resist anything they didn't learn when they were kids, [or from the Bible].

 

[Turtle]

... but it's just stupid to ignore what science has learned, because it goes against what we thought we knew.

Playing fast and loose with the word science there.

Sorry, but gender fluidity is not science by any stretch of the imagination. It's part of the LGBT political agenda to indoctrinate tolerance and acceptance and normalcy to the abnormal. People who claim to be gender fluid feel more male on some days and more female on other days and promote the notion that gender isn't a biological reality but is a social and cultural construct. The LBGT crowd plays up hard the definition of Gender Fluid in that it has nothing to do with which set of genitalia one has, nor their sexual orientation. The reality is, gender is a biological fact, regardless of social culture, and nothing in science refutes that reality. The Gender Fluidity movement, for lack of a better term, ignores biology and focuses on the cultural gender roles, in which society defines the roles to be played by gender. But gender theory isn't science, though it desperately wants and purports to be, as it falls under the disciplines of Gender Studies in the Social Sciences liberal arts. It's all about attaining an acceptance, even an embracing as normal, the gender roles that do not conform to the traditional gender assignments of society. Part of this comes from the fight against gender inequality, which refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender, and arises from differences in socially constructed gender roles as well as biologically through chromosomes, brain structure, and hormonal differences. Gender fluidity is not science. Not even close. It's pure political agenda.

 

[skyraider]

Me thinks I have lived to long...........................................just take the kids out to a farm for a few weeks, sex education is on the farm, just watch how creation really works, they will understand soon..birds, bees, cattle, horses,etc...

Ok, now back to the show................

 

[LDB]

Or maybe we're falling behind because what we learned the way we learned it 50 years ago was a proven and well working method with minimal hierarchy and bureaucracy at the top and better educated teachers at the bottom with none of the liberal fools and foolishness contaminating the education. Add the strict and allowed discipline which did no harm to anyone, other than a few minutes of real sting from the paddle, and kids learned something. Kids graduated equipped for the world. We were competitive. Now we have a ship of fools in charge and no discipline in the ranks. Worst of all we have a bunch of fools supporting and attempting to justify every new idiocy that comes along, just like this one.

Go back to teaching phonics so kids can actually read what's written in something other than twit form. Teach the "old" math where students could tell you, once the grocery cart was filled, exactly what the total price is, to the penny, with nothing but there eyes and brain to calculate it rather than the "new" math that sees to it the youth can only stand with a deer in the headlights look on their face when the machine fails to tell them how much change to hand out. Go back to no teacher's unions or tenure for lousy teachers so the mediocre are dismissed rather than kept forever.

Intelligent people don't want change for the sake of change. We'll just replace intelligent people with conservatives to fit. Liberal fools, like almost all of those in charge of education, want change regularly to solidify their position. It doesn't matter that it's almost always change for the worse as long as it adds even more bureaucracy. Now they have a principal for every grade at a high school and maybe an overall as well. They have multiple assistant principals for every grade. Fifty years ago they had one of each for the entire school and graduated far more students with far better educations.

It's just an absolutely ridiculous move to defend anything going on in education today. It's a fool's errand undertaken by fools or by liberals pushing the agenda of bureaucracy and tenure rather than education.

 

[cheri1122]

For the record, I got paddled in junior high, and what I learned is it's not ok to hit anyone, unless you are in a position of authority - then it's "a learning experience". BS. All most kids learn from being 'spanked' is not to get caught doing it again. And that adults are real good at hypocrisy.

 

[cheri1122]

Playing fast and loose with the word science there.

Sorry, but gender fluidity is not science by any stretch of the imagination. It's part of the LGBT political agenda to indoctrinate tolerance and acceptance and normalcy to the abnormal. People who claim to be gender fluid feel more male on some days and more female on other days and promote the notion that gender isn't a biological reality but is a social and cultural construct. The LBGT crowd plays up hard the definition of Gender Fluid in that it has nothing to do with which set of genitalia one has, nor their sexual orientation. The reality is, gender is a biological fact, regardless of social culture, and nothing in science refutes that reality. The Gender Fluidity movement, for lack of a better term, ignores biology and focuses on the cultural gender roles, in which society defines the roles to be played by gender. But gender theory isn't science, though it desperately wants and purports to be, as it falls under the disciplines of Gender Studies in the Social Sciences liberal arts. It's all about attaining an acceptance, even an embracing as normal, the gender roles that do not conform to the traditional gender assignments of society. Part of this comes from the fight against gender inequality, which refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender, and arises from differences in socially constructed gender roles as well as biologically through chromosomes, brain structure, and hormonal differences. Gender fluidity is not science. Not even close. It's pure political agenda.

I don't know from 'gender fluidity', never even heard of it, and it sounds pretty bizarre. I can understand feeling one was assigned the wrong gender at birth, but one can't flip flop on the issue: pick one and stick with it, dammit!
There are many times when a newborn's gender isn't at all clear, and times when it looks one way outside, but another way from internal organs. There are cases where both are present, and neither, so why is it hard to believe that a child who was presumed to be one gender actually believes himself to be the other? Such children are like homosexuals, in that they know when they're very young [too young to understand sexuality] that there is something different about themselves, and they only figure out what it is exactly as they get older.
Trying to force those children into their arbitrarily designated gender is like forcing left handed kids to be right handed, because: normal. [And left handedness is related to 'sinister', because: evil.
Adults who don't understand why they're different simply reject it, putting the kids through absolute hell, until science gets around to figuring out why it happens. Then, only the adults who prefer ignorance will make them miserable over it.
Gender 'fluidity' is just plain nuts, though. We all have a mix of male/female characteristics, with some being more pronounced than others, and we have days when we feel more this than that - but that's not gender, it's just human nature.

 

[Turtle]

Gender fluidity is precisely what they plan on teaching. Go back and re-read the article. You'll see fluidity in the headline and the first paragraph.

 

[cheri1122]

Gender fluidity is precisely what they plan on teaching. Go back and re-read the article. You'll see fluidity in the headline and the first paragraph.

The only ones saying that it's going to "deconstruct gender" or make it fluid are the Coalition for Traditional Values and the Family Research Council, and we know how their beliefs on anything other than abstinence until traditional marriage [and the missionary position ever after] do not align with anyone other than extreme conservatives.
It's about time we stop insisting that the gender assigned at birth is unchangeable - who knows what the doctor who assigned it actually knew about the subject?

 

[Turtle]

Do some research in gender fluidity and "gender spectrum." That is exactly what they want to get into schools under the Gender Studies umbrella. As part of your research, read the quotes from the school's documentation in the above article.

 

[cheri1122]

I read them, and think people are overreacting to what they perceive. Of course, many of those people don't want their kids taught anything about sex, [and they do a poor job of it, if any at all, themselves], so it doesn't surprise me.
Peter Sprigg of the FRC said "They're telling us you can be both genders, or neither, or you can make one up for yourself" but that's just poppycock - there's nothing of the sort in what the school provided.
The "fluidity" and "spectrum changing over a lifetime" mentioned refers to sexuality, not gender.

 

[Turtle]

You really need to do some research on this. It's not poppycock at all, and fluidity and spectrum refer to both sexuality and gender. The goal is to do away with societal norms of sexuality and gender, so that any and all behaviors are accepted as normal. They literally want to normalize abnormal behavior.

There are gender theorist activists who, after near roots, have had their way with several Wikipedia pages, like the one on Gender, and Gender Spectrum. Go visit GenderSpectrum.org, and tolerance.org.. This whole deal with getting this in schools is a major part of the agenda.

I realize this all sounds like poppycock a s hogwash, but, astonishingly, it's not.

 

[cheri1122]

You really need to do some research on this. It's not poppycock at all, and fluidity and spectrum refer to both sexuality and gender. The goal is to do away with societal norms of sexuality and gender, so that any and all behaviors are accepted as normal. They literally want to normalize abnormal behavior.

There are gender theorist activists who, after near roots, have had their way with several Wikipedia pages, like the one on Gender, and Gender Spectrum. Go visit GenderSpectrum.org, and tolerance.org.. This whole deal with getting this in schools is a major part of the agenda.

I realize this all sounds like poppycock a s hogwash, but, astonishingly, it's not.

Based solely on what was written in this article, [specifically the actual material proposed by the school authorities], both 'fluidity' and 'spectrum' refer to sexuality, not to gender. As in: one can be hetero, homo, or bi sexual, and the latter is where the fluidity and spectrum play a role. AFAIK, hetero and homo sexuality don't change, [absent social pressure to 'conform' applied to homosexuals], but bisexual orientation apparently can. It can appear later in life, after a long and satisfying relationship of the traditional kind, [thus, the spectrum] and it can change from a preference for one gender to a preference for the other, from time to time [thus the fluidity].
I don't know a lot about bisexuality, nor does anyone who hasn't really studied it, but I do know that every person contains bits of both male/female, which our gender stereotypes neglect to admit. A boy who plays with dolls [or loves the color pink] isn't necessarily gay, though his horrified father may think so. I've seen this actually happen, and it's sad, really. A toddler doesn't know from gender stereotypes, people!
We really need to get beyond the traditional thinking, and learn some new things, which is where science is involved - there hasn't been a great deal of research into the causes of sexuality and gender perception, until lately.

 

[Turtle]

From the article: "Eighth graders will be taught that individual identity “occurs over a lifetime and includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity.” That's what gender spectrum means. Like u said, do some research and don't put all your eggs into the wording an information provided by a single author who didn't really understand the agenda, either.

“Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

Again, it's about normalizing the abnormal, to the point where society doesn't merely tolerate it, but appreciates the differences to be cherished and celebrated as normal.

 

[cheri1122]

From the article: "Eighth graders will be taught that individual identity “occurs over a lifetime and includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity.” That's what gender spectrum means. Like u said, do some research and don't put all your eggs into the wording an information provided by a single author who didn't really understand the agenda, either.

“Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

Again, it's about normalizing the abnormal, to the point where society doesn't merely tolerate it, but appreciates the differences to be cherished and celebrated as normal.

I put my eggs into the basket of the wording of the school officials who will actually create the curriculum, not the author of the article. Maybe, when kids learn to "appreciate individual differences", men won't freak right out when their toddler likes to wear pink, but OMG, he's a BOY!
How the FRC gets the notion that it means students will be taught that "anyone can make up a gender, and we should accept it" is just beyond me, because there are still just the two: male & female. To some degree, we are all composed of both, but can only present as one. This is where it gets sticky: when a mistake is made, before the person involved can be consulted [usually because they've only just been born], and it is perpetuated for years. Once addressed, however, the gender change does not happen again - there is NO fluidity there. On identity, who knows? That's more about psychology, which we also don't know tons about, except it's crazy to assign gender stereotypes that make people feel 'wrong' for not fitting into. Because there's some of both genders in every one of us.
Again: it's about assimilating what new information science discovers, not about anyone's agenda.

 

[Turtle]

I put my eggs into the basket of the wording of the school officials who will actually create the curriculum, not the author of the article. Maybe, when kids learn to "appreciate individual differences", men won't freak right out when their toddler likes to wear pink, but OMG, he's a BOY!

You're trying to defend something that you don't really understand, and you're putting it in terms that you do understand in order to defend it. This isn't about men freaking out about toddlers liking to wear pink, playing with dolls, or possibly training themselves for entering show business. Just because the author didn't use the phrase "spectrum" in the context of gender fluidity doesn't mean spectrum only refers to sexual orientation. He didn't use the term "nonbinary" either, but that's part and parcel of it.

The quotes from the school's curriculum documents that were released by the school all come directly from genderspectrum.org, because that's who is doing the training and curriculum materials. That's that they do.

How the FRC gets the notion that it means students will be taught that "anyone can make up a gender, and we should accept it" is just beyond me, because there are still just the two: male & female.

Well, for one, the FRC can be dismissed out of hand because they are largely agenda driven and irrelevant, but like you state, there are still just two genders, male and female. These gender studies teach there are virtually countless genders. They;ve even come up with a salutation for it, instead of Mr. , Mrs, Ms, and Miss, it's Mx.

To some degree, we are all composed of both, but can only present as one.

No, ho, no. You're wrong. Just ask a gender theorist and those involved with this movement (which, interestingly enough, are composed not solely, but chiefly of pre and post op transgender type peoples). They claim a virtually unlimited classification of gender, including genderless.

This is where it gets sticky: when a mistake is made, before the person involved can be consulted [usually because they've only just been born], and it is perpetuated for years. Once addressed, however, the gender change does not happen again - there is NO fluidity there. On identity, who knows? That's more about psychology, which we also don't know tons about, except it's crazy to assign gender stereotypes that make people feel 'wrong' for not fitting into. Because there's some of both genders in every one of us.

I'll ignore for now that you said sticky, and just say that according to the movement, fluidity is the key factor, where people (from the article) "...the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls."

Again: it's about assimilating what new information science discovers, not about anyone's agenda.

But science hasn't discovered anything about this. The gender theorists claim what they are doing is science, but it's pseudo-science, it's junk science. This has almost zero to do with biological gender, or making mistakes in the the delivery room, but rather it's all about feelings, and regardless of how abnormal your feelings might be, that's OK because they're your feelings and they're normal for you, therefore your feelings are to be accepted and embraced as normal. That way you can finally be your authentic self.

"Gender Fluid is a gender identity best described as a dynamic mix of boy and girl. A person who is Gender Fluid may always feel like a mix of the two traditional genders, but may feel more boy some days, and more girl other days. Being Gender Fluid has nothing to do with which set of genitalia one has, nor their sexual orientation."

From their Understanding Gender page:

"Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of a person’s identity, gender deeply influences every part of one’s life. In a society where this crucial aspect of self has been so narrowly defined and rigidly enforced, individuals who exists outside its norms face innumerable challenges. Even those who vary only slightly from the norm can become targets of disapproval. Yet this does not have to be the case forever. Through a thoughtful consideration of the uniqueness and validity of every person’s experiences of self, we can develop greater acceptance for all. Not only will this create greater inclusion for individuals who challenge the norms of gender, it will actually create space for all individuals to more fully explore and celebrate who they are."

That's not science. Quit saying it's science. It's a social agenda.

 

[vandriver2]

I'm Fluid in one thing, and one thing only....English.

 

[skyraider]

Gender Identity: When I was a child/preteen, the boys wore jeans, the girls wore dresses. We had boys bikes and the girls had girl bikes.lol. Girls twirled batons, did skip rope, boys had small pistols, holsters,and some of us had cowboy boots, fishing rods, and we all had wagons/girls and boys. We had ropes thrown over tree limbs for swinging, and acres of woods with streams for making dams . Lets see, yes, skates that clamped on your shoes, the skates were gender neutral. Boys had their birthday parties, girls had theirs. Went we all went swimming, girls had girls swim suits, boys had their swim suits, no speedos for guys, standard little girl swim suits for girls.

Well that was the 50's, somewhat simple time zone then, but now we are all so smart and intelligent that we cannot tell the sexes apart anymore without some dip shtzt telling us in grade school what a girl is or what a boy is, what a bunch of horse cheese they are teaching these days. imho. What a crock of shtz all this gender crap is....

 

[LDB]

Bottom line, it isn't part of the 3 R's and does nothing to improve competitiveness on the world stage. It isn't a part of what a good education should be, given the goal of decent employment and promotion, the things school should be preparing students for. Yeah, it pains the liberals who think school is supposed to be the new parent and do the parent's job so the parent is absolved of any responsibility beyond ing and creating the baby. Well that's worked great for the last generation plus, hasn't it.