No boys, no girls

[cheri1122]

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.

It's not "the liberals" who think school is supposed to do the parents' job, it's the society that sees how many parents don't - or do it badly. That's why subjects like sex ed became necessary, because parents simply weren't doing what they were supposed to, just as mine didn't. They were too embarrassed to even mention sex, so I learned like everyone else: from my friends' older siblings. And I can tell you, they didn't know what they were talking about, but neither did I, so I believed them.
When Loretta Lynn says she had 5 kids before she knew what caused them, we think it's funny, but it's not - it's too close to reality for too many adolescents, then and now.

 

[cheri1122]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Seems to me it's just people saying "Think about this", and getting a thoughtful response. I found nothing I could disagree with in anything they said, [I didn't see the 'Mx' appellation, though, but really: does it matter?]
What I know is that the stereotypes of male/female are often harmful, to those who don't fall in line. And yes, it is about men freaking out when their 2 year old son want his nails polished, or the daughter wants nothing to do with frilly dresses or long hair. That tells the kids they're somehow wrong, or bad, and that attitude continues to where anyone who is different is made to suffer. Really suffer - as in commit suicide rather than face more of it. Every parent is aware of that, most see it all the time, with school bullies. Any adolescent who seems 'different' is made to suffer, and how does that help us as a society? How many Alan Turings and Oscar Wildes can we afford to just throw away? What if the person who could cure cancer is a man who thinks he should have been a woman, or vice versa?
And why is it so hard to accept that maybe there is more to the concept of gender than we've ever thought?
I really don't think the idea of "gender fluidity" means one can use the men's room today, the women's tomorrow - it means we are not !00% male or female, any of us. As a woman who drives trucks, I understand that totally.
Maybe it's easier to understand if you've ever faced subtle discrimination, for being a female, say, or left handed, as I have. If you haven't, [and I know of no reason you would], it's tough to convince you that it exists, and it's not good for us. But I believe it does, and it's not.

 

[Turtle]

But none of that is science, which is my point. It's a social agenda, getting people to think and act differently. It isn't about a restroom, or freaking out of your son plays with Barbie instead of GI Joe, or children made to suffer, really suffer, because of society's failings on gender roles or bullying, it's about the normalization of the abnormal.

They say that kids are committing suicide because they aren't allowed to be themselves. That's hogwash. It's a tactic uses to make people feel guilty for thinking a certain way, and to get them to think differently. This push against bullying, because people are committing suicide, began in the 1970s gained ground in the late 80s when it was introduced into school curriculums. The odd thing is, from 1900 through 1970, the suicide rate of 5-14 year olds remained steady at between 0.2 and 0.3 per 100,000 population. In 1990 the suicide rate for this age group exploded to 0.8 and in 1995 0.9. It's now leveled off to 0.7. The campaign apparently let more people know that they are victims, so now people who couldn't cope with the injustice killed themselves.

In the 15-24 year range, the numbers are similar in that from 1900 through 1980,you know, back when gender roles and gender identity in society was more rigidly intolerant, the suicide rate was steady between 4.5 and 5.2. In 1990 it shot up to 13.2,ace has leveled off at 10.5.

So, the more a natural human behavior is reviled and discouraged (bullying) the less people are capable of coping with it. (not unlike the sexual repression of the religious right which has f'd up entire generations). What we have is, in typical feel-good but with unintended consequences fashion, the attempt to normalize abnormality in an effort to reduce the suicide rates of those who's sexual orientation and gender identity are outside the societal norms, have resulted in a more-than doubling of the suicide rate. Good job, libbies.

 

[cheri1122]

But none of that is science, which is my point. It's a social agenda, getting people to think and act differently. It isn't about a restroom, or freaking out of your son plays with Barbie instead of GI Joe, or children made to suffer, really suffer, because of society's failings on gender roles or bullying, it's about the normalization of the abnormal.

They say that kids are committing suicide because they aren't allowed to be themselves. That's hogwash. It's a tactic uses to make people feel guilty for thinking a certain way, and to get them to think differently. This push against bullying, because people are committing suicide, began in the 1970s gained ground in the late 80s when it was introduced into school curriculums. The odd thing is, from 1900 through 1970, the suicide rate of 5-14 year olds remained steady at between 0.2 and 0.3 per 100,000 population. In 1990 the suicide rate for this age group exploded to 0.8 and in 1995 0.9. It's now leveled off to 0.7. The campaign apparently let more people know that they are victims, so now people who couldn't cope with the injustice killed themselves.

In the 15-24 year range, the numbers are similar in that from 1900 through 1980,you know, back when gender roles and gender identity in society was more rigidly intolerant, the suicide rate was steady between 4.5 and 5.2. In 1990 it shot up to 13.2,ace has leveled off at 10.5.

So, the more a natural human behavior is reviled and discouraged (bullying) the less people are capable of coping with it. (not unlike the sexual repression of the religious right which has f'd up entire generations). What we have is, in typical feel-good but with unintended consequences fashion, the attempt to normalize abnormality in an effort to reduce the suicide rates of those who's sexual orientation and gender identity are outside the societal norms, have resulted in a more-than doubling of the suicide rate. Good job, libbies.

My daughters went through school in the 80s & 90s, and heard not a single word about bullying. Gay, queer, got - those were the most potent slurs, [or affectionate terms, as '' is today, among girlfriends], and no student dared to "come out" back then. Now that they have, the suicide rate seems to show that they no longer agree with those who believe they're 'wrong', as they used to. I disagree that they're less able to cope with it, I think they don't see why they should have to - and I agree with them. They commit suicide because they are powerless to change what they are, or how people react to it. [With hatred and ugliness] One young man I know of committed suicide because he had a serious crush on the captain of his swim team, and he was terrified he'd give himself away, [no one knew he was gay], without wanting to.
If bullying is a natural human behavior, it's one we need to discourage. I can find no redeeming features in it - it's simply an expression of ugliness, for no purpose except to make the perpetrator look/feel better at someone else's [someone unable to fight back, of course] expense.
You keep saying "normalize abnormality", as if that's a bad thing, but is it? It's abnormal to be left handed, too, should that make us outcasts?
As for the 'societal norms', that isn't a static thing - remember when women didn't work outside the home? Teachers and nurses couldn't be married?
I don't understand the hostility to granting 'normal people' status to those who look/act/feel differently than heterosexuals, seriously. As long as they aren't hurting others, why hurt them by declaring them unfit to be just like everyone else?

 

[aristotle]

Private schools are an alternative to this madness. Soon, there won't be one vestige of traditional thought left in our public education systems. Those pushing for radical social change are having their day and the acceleration of change is alarming. We don't know where this leads. How did it come to be that normal people now seek refuge?

 

[cheri1122]

Private schools are an alternative to this madness. Soon, there won't be one vestige of traditional thought left in our public education systems. Those pushing for radical social change are having their day and the acceleration of change is alarming. We don't know where this leads. How did it come to be that normal people now seek refuge?

Dude, you're seriously hyperventilating - maybe some yoga would help?
Societies change, that's their nature. Conservatives dislike change, that's their nature - but it generally works out ok, once we get used to it. The world won't end if gays get married, really.
Was it 'radical' when women wanted to vote, too?

 

[Turtle]

Bullying has always been discouraged, but only recently has it been criminalized (among with many other natural behaviors). Many of these behaviors are not only found through nature to aid in the survival of species, but in humans they can be critical for a coherent, stable and durable society. Bullying, as bad as it is, helps serve as a moral compass for those who have experienced or witnessed it.

Incidentally, http://masterherald.com/miley-cyrus-like-ruby-rose-admits-that-she-is-gender-fluid/17455/

 

[aristotle]

The push for rapid and radical social change is not something to take lightly. Thriving, stable cultures don't just pop up out of nowhere. The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations underpin societies and that wisdom has value. The United States Supreme Court will hand down its rulings on homosexual marriage in June. We will then know if the Radical Left has triumphed over reason.

 

[cheri1122]

The push for rapid and radical social change is not something to take lightly. Thriving, stable cultures don't just pop up out of nowhere. The accumulated wisdom of hundreds of generations underpin societies and that wisdom has value. The United States Supreme Court will hand down its rulings on homosexual marriage in June. We will then know if the Radical Left has triumphed over reason.

Sorry, Ari, but it's not radical, it just feels that way to those who don't want it. I bet women's suffrage felt radical, too, to the men [and women] who thought it was a terrible step to take. And again, religion informed their judgement - women aren't treated as equal to men in the Bible, nor in the church. I see that as their loss, myself.
It reminds me of the way people with visible handicaps used to [less than 100 years ago] be hidden from sight. Not the prosaic disabilities, like a missing limb or eye, [something that could have been sustained in battle], but the unsightly ones, like cleft palates, cerebral palsy - it made people uncomfortable to look at, so they decided it was better to keep them locked away. No one thought they could be taught [anything], until Maria Montessori [yes, that 'Montessori'] proved them wrong. The first woman to graduate medical school in Italy, the decision makers put her in charge of the "insane" kids, believing she wasn't capable of treating anyone else. Not only did she find many misdiagnosed [deaf, mildly retarded], she was wildly successful in teaching them. Likewise, no one thought the doubly afflicted deaf and blind could learn, until Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller proved 'everyone' was wrong. If you're thinking "Surely there were some men who accomplished great things", there was Pierre Curie, who was wise enough to not underestimate his Marie, lol.
When you disregard half the human capital, you [literally] don't know what you're missing. If that doesn't bother you, well, what can I say? [I can say a lot, but I won't, just SMH]
So, the unsightly handicapped: should they be treated as less than human, because they make people uncomfortable to look at?
Should gay people pretend they're not, because it makes people uncomfortable to consider them?
I'm not accepting "Because the Bible tells me so", it's not my Bible [not my circus, not my monkeys, lol]
Nor do I accept "unnatural" or "abnormal" because there's plenty of us who fit that description in spite of being heterosexual. I'm left handed - that's abnormal, no?
Give me a reason, that isn't based on your religion, or the idea of "unnatural" being de facto 'wrong', or that gay sex doesn't procreate [neither do many heterosexual couples], because none of those is worth the sacrifice you ask of people who didn't ask to be who they are. As did none of us.
I'd have sure picked someone else to be, lol.

 

[skyraider]

Now here are 2 ladies that understand gender roles....................

anyone want to smart off to them,,,,tea anyone.

 

[cheri1122]

Bullying has always been discouraged, but only recently has it been criminalized (among with many other natural behaviors). Many of these behaviors are not only found through nature to aid in the survival of species, but in humans they can be critical for a coherent, stable and durable society. Bullying, as bad as it is, helps serve as a moral compass for those who have experienced or witnessed it.

Incidentally, http://masterherald.com/miley-cyrus-like-ruby-rose-admits-that-she-is-gender-fluid/17455/

I gather that being 'gender fluid' is just bisexual, when it's at home with it's feet up, lol. New name, same old people. We've long known that every person is a mix of male/female traits, so it's just a new way of saying it, far as I can tell. People can claim they identify with neither gender, but faced with a need to use a public restroom, you think they'll wait for the one that says "Neutral"?
Bisexuality has been part of us forever too - it just doesn't get the attention of gay sex, because first, it doesn't make itself apparent at puberty, [when peers begin appreciating the opposite gender they despised last week], so the person is spared the whole angsty adolescent end of the world drama of it all, and second, because men can get some serious fantasy mileage out of it.

 

[Turtle]

Gender fluidity has nothing to do with how or whom you bump ugly.

 

[cheri1122]

Gender fluidity had nothing to do with how or whom you bump ugly.

Then it's just about equal pay? It's hard to tell, if they mean gender as in expressing it, or acting [sexually] on it. I mean, if I dress in jeans, tshirt, and tennies, does that make me gender fluid, because that's what the guys wear too?
Seriously, any moron knows that everyone is a mixture of male/female traits, it's just that some are very much one, very little the other [the usual ratio, aligning with one's gender], while very few are all macho man or girly girl. This is news?
What I read is that the schools intend to teach respect for those who are different, as in gay or transgender. I think that's fine, because we're all different, but for most of us, it doesn't show on the surface, so nothing for the bullies to latch onto.
The gender fluidity stuff is just psychobabble, IMO.

 

[cheri1122]

I just remembered that bit about "it [teaching respect for differences] does nothing to improve competitiveness on the world stage". BS. Why do you think so many companies pressured the officials in Indiana to retract their 'religious freedom' bill?
Because discrimination [religiously inspired or not] does not play well with an international audience. Many countries have already legalized gay marriage, [radical, indeed!] and they don't care to associate with troglodytes who have a problem with what consenting adults do with their lives. Ignorance and bigotry do nothing to improve competitiveness, here or elsewhere.
Many of the most creative people happen to be gay - maybe some think we can compete without them, but those who know think otherwise.

 

[Turtle]

The gender fluidity stuff is just psychobabble, IMO.

Which is why I took issue with you calling it science. None of this curriculum involves science. It's 100% social agenda.

As for competitive on the world stage...

It sounds good, I suppose, to state that discrimination (religiously inspired or not) did not play well with an international audience, but it turns out that it does.

The United States ranks rather high in the rankings for the least amount of discrimination and violence against minorities. ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_discrimination_and_violence_against_minorities)

While I, and most people would agree, that ignorance and bigotry does nothing to improve competitiveness here or elsewhere, neither, it seems, does focusing fairly significant amounts of time, energy and money on liberal feel-good social issues, instead of focusing on producing high school graduates who can read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide, who can find North America on a map, and know that 9/11 happened in 2001.

Americans that have a four year college degree are essentially on the same intellectual level as young adults in Japan, Finland and the Netherlands that only have a high school degree. Fifty percent of high school graduates never had a class where they had to write more than 20 pages during the entire year. Eighty percent never had to read an entire book as part of assigned reading for a class.

Instead, schools are focusing on self-esteem, individualism, diversity, multiculturalism, and political agendas disguised as classroom courses (including agendas as wildly varied as gender diversity, and creation "science").

You know what doesn't play well with an international audience?

"Americans are stupid."

 

[skyraider]

Will there be a test on all of this stuff?????????????????????????

 

[Turtle]

This is 8th grade math, or what used to be. Now it's probably second year physics in college. <snort>

A dragon drank 1/5 of the water in a lake.

After a break, he drank 1/4 of the remaining water.

After another break, he drank 1/3 of the remaining water.

After a final break, he drank 1/2 of the remaining water.

How much water is left in the lake, compared with the initial amount?

12%
20%
25%
6%

 

[Ragman]

This is 8th grade math, or what used to be. Now it's probably second year physics in college. <snort>

A dragon drank 1/5 of the water in a lake.

After a break, he drank 1/4 of the remaining water.

After another break, he drank 1/3 of the remaining water.

After a final break, he drank 1/2 of the remaining water.

How much water is left in the lake, compared with the initial amount?

12%
20%
25%
6%

20% ?

 

[vandriver2]

This is 8th grade math, or what used to be. Now it's probably second year physics in college. <snort>

A dragon drank 1/5 of the water in a lake.

After a break, he drank 1/4 of the remaining water.

After another break, he drank 1/3 of the remaining water.

After a final break, he drank 1/2 of the remaining water.

How much water is left in the lake, compared with the initial amount?

12%
20%
25%
6%

1/5th, 20%

 

[Turtle]

Correct!