GenderBread Person

[thegreekdog]

Not sure about that TGD. I think the parents, at least the ones that give a crap about their kids, will always provide a sort of lens through which the child views the world during those formative years.

imo you are right that the speed of uptake of LGBT equality is partly due to modern communication technology, but I think it also has a fair bit to do with the suffrajette and civil rights movements. The activists now have had a chance to learn lessons from the activisits back then in making pretty much the same sort of point and are able to skip much quicker to the most effective tactics (also it's quicker and easier to take the same principles through the courts based on the fundamental equality precedents set in these other cases)

I don't disagree with that, but I think as adults, we may be more informed than we were before because we're not getting one consistent message. Even my parents, who only watch Fox News, can't avoid all other forms of media and communication.

I honestly think activists have had very little to do with the progress gays have made in the United States. In fact, if we measure progress by "acceptance" (not saying we should, just saying if we do), then I suspect activists hurt progress by taking views that the mainstream is not yet ready for. Again, I'm not saying they are doing anything wrong by taking views the mainstream is not yet ready for.

[AndyDufresne]

I honestly think activists have had very little to do with the progress gays have made in the United States. In fact, if we measure progress by "acceptance" (not saying we should, just saying if we do), then I suspect activists hurt progress by taking views that the mainstream is not yet ready for. Again, I'm not saying they are doing anything wrong by taking views the mainstream is not yet ready for.

I think the main impact to the progress is likely both technology (as mentioned previously), as well as the youth generation's majority support for it (since they are likely to be using the technology).


--Andy

[Symmetry]

Not sure about that TGD. I think the parents, at least the ones that give a crap about their kids, will always provide a sort of lens through which the child views the world during those formative years.

imo you are right that the speed of uptake of LGBT equality is partly due to modern communication technology, but I think it also has a fair bit to do with the suffrajette and civil rights movements. The activists now have had a chance to learn lessons from the activisits back then in making pretty much the same sort of point and are able to skip much quicker to the most effective tactics (also it's quicker and easier to take the same principles through the courts based on the fundamental equality precedents set in these other cases)

I don't disagree with that, but I think as adults, we may be more informed than we were before because we're not getting one consistent message. Even my parents, who only watch Fox News, can't avoid all other forms of media and communication.

I honestly think activists have had very little to do with the progress gays have made in the United States. In fact, if we measure progress by "acceptance" (not saying we should, just saying if we do), then I suspect activists hurt progress by taking views that the mainstream is not yet ready for. Again, I'm not saying they are doing anything wrong by taking views the mainstream is not yet ready for.

What do you mean by "activists"?

[crispybits]

I realsie that question is for TGD but just so I'm clear as I used the word first - I mean "activist" in this context as anyone doing work to promote equality. Not necessarily just people taking part in marches or parades but also the many people working behind the scenes through politics and the legal system to achieve the end goal.

[thegreekdog]

Not sure about that TGD. I think the parents, at least the ones that give a crap about their kids, will always provide a sort of lens through which the child views the world during those formative years.

imo you are right that the speed of uptake of LGBT equality is partly due to modern communication technology, but I think it also has a fair bit to do with the suffrajette and civil rights movements. The activists now have had a chance to learn lessons from the activisits back then in making pretty much the same sort of point and are able to skip much quicker to the most effective tactics (also it's quicker and easier to take the same principles through the courts based on the fundamental equality precedents set in these other cases)

I don't disagree with that, but I think as adults, we may be more informed than we were before because we're not getting one consistent message. Even my parents, who only watch Fox News, can't avoid all other forms of media and communication.

I honestly think activists have had very little to do with the progress gays have made in the United States. In fact, if we measure progress by "acceptance" (not saying we should, just saying if we do), then I suspect activists hurt progress by taking views that the mainstream is not yet ready for. Again, I'm not saying they are doing anything wrong by taking views the mainstream is not yet ready for.

What do you mean by "activists"?

I mean people that lobby the government and support cases being brought to court.

[crispybits]

By definition your argument is true TGD, the political and legal actors may not be effective and may be counter-effective on the sociological and media/cultural stage.

To clarify my original point tho, the civil/race rights and the womens rights struggles have left behind them lessons for all of the actors, both political/leagal and social/cultural and those that work through any means to achieve the end goal of equality for all. The patterns of how these battles go has been established, and you could almost write a manual for how to win them giving fairly explicit step by step stages with specific instructions for each stage in whatever medium someone is working through. All the false starts, all the mistakes have been made already and can be learned from (which isn't to say they won't be made again but that they should be made less often and with lesser detrimental consequences). The path to achieving equality has been laid out and the roadmap is getting fairly well detailed.

So I'll admit fault for using the word "activist" because it didn't make my point well. However I will say in response to the criticique of activists that you made that for virtually any social good there will always be a proportion of the population that aren't ready or willing or amenable to hear it. Without the force of law behind equality causes I'm not convinced society could have achieved equality in these contexts at all, and definitely not within the timescales it has happened. If you don't change the laws (for which you require activists by your definition) then it's too easy for discrimination to occur and not be regarded as something "wrong", because almost by definition it always remains something "normal" that is hard-coded into the society.

[Phatscotty]

You would be punctilious in assuming that!

1. Everybody is different, nobody is exactly the same. Not even biological twins. Which is the very reason why we don't need to decide which size fits all. I suppose the answer is whenever the concepts need to be introduced. That's a choice for each person/family/group, and you should already know you won't find me dictating to everyone else that this MUST be done at a certain age and it MUST be done within the extremely successful public education system.
2. I'm not about to dictate what is taboo and when or why. If a child is having trouble with something, then that is the time to identify what is troubling as well as to address how best to deal with it.
3. I can reverse that to further the convo (as well as touch on the original point), on what basis did genderbread person be deemed 'need to know'? Obviously, the basis was not there a year ago.

OK. I guess where we disagree then is the role of the education system. I think the role of the education system can be defined something like:

To provide children with a well rounded understanding of reality, including differing views on cultural issues within their culture and between their culture and other cultures.

That's your opinion, and I can't disagree totally in that it seems to be what the public education system is doing, but I do disagree that it's what the system is supposed to do. IMO, the system is supposed to teach children arithmetic, writing, reading, science, phy-ed and such... To turn over 'teaching what is reality' to teachers, at least in my country, is just turning it over to the federal government. And I think with the cultural issues, it's already clear, in my country, that they system picks which cultures will be celebrated and also has full permission to discriminate against other cultures. Our system has already failed miserably, resulting in many students of a certain race ending up hating themselves, with other students of other races ending up feeling superior to other races. Something along what you say that I must learn about other cultures, but I will be attacked as a racist if I talk about my own culture.

Culture in school, as I remember it, was introduced in 11th and 12th grade. I freely chose to study other cultures and religions in college, but it was not a requirement. Why should other cultures be forced to be learned? I have heard for a long time now that minorities have had a valid complaint that they have been forced to learn anglo-saxon culture. I'm gonna go ahead and 'guess' this is all leading up to another double standard.

[AndyDufresne]

. Why should other cultures be forced to be learned?

--Andy

[HighBorn]

Wow its Andydufresne, cant believe your still on here. Hmm wonder if anyone even remembers me lol... ugh i got to change that stupid avatar lol Bushwackers dang that takes me back lol

[crispybits]

OK PS I'm gonna make an unstated assumption here that may be wrong, but I think there is a question that may bring us closer to understanding where the actual difference is on the issue in the OP. I disagree by the way tht you didn't learn about culture until 11th-12th grade unless you went to an extremely incompetent school. If you had lessons in history, literature, art history, comparitive religious studies, foreign languages or music in 10th grade or lower you learned culture before you state you did.

Should we have sexual education/sexual health classes in school?

And a couple of follow-ups:

If we are going to teach about sexual health then is it not important to teach about the variety of forms sexual behaviour takes (including the ones that are universally deemed unacceptable at any age like rape)? If we only teach consensual hetero sex, do we not leave kids open to manipulation by people who wish to take advantage of their naivety to get them to engage in less common sexual behaviours under the guise "it's not really sex if we do this so those lessons don't apply"?

Given that girls as young as 9 or 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_yo ... th_mothers) have been recorded to have got pregnant and given birth both in the US and around the world, is it reasonable to start those lessons early enough that we minimise the risks to young people as they enter the age of sexual experimentation/exploitation?

[Lootifer]

That's your opinion, and I can't disagree totally in that it seems to be what the public education system is doing, but I do disagree that it's what the system is supposed to do. IMO, the system is supposed to teach children arithmetic, writing, reading, science, phy-ed and such... To turn over 'teaching what is reality' to teachers, at least in my country, is just turning it over to the federal government. And I think with the cultural issues, it's already clear, in my country, that they system picks which cultures will be celebrated and also has full permission to discriminate against other cultures. Our system has already failed miserably, resulting in many students of a certain race ending up hating themselves, with other students of other races ending up feeling superior to other races. Something along what you say that I must learn about other cultures, but I will be attacked as a racist if I talk about my own culture.

Culture in school, as I remember it, was introduced in 11th and 12th grade. I freely chose to study other cultures and religions in college, but it was not a requirement. Why should other cultures be forced to be learned? I have heard for a long time now that minorities have had a valid complaint that they have been forced to learn anglo-saxon culture. I'm gonna go ahead and 'guess' this is all leading up to another double standard.

Another question to follow up Crispys above:

Do you think that modern methods of teaching the "traditional" schools (the ones you named) should also be revised? The maths one is a great example, there was a debate about it a while back here, techniques like chunking and gridding...

[thegreekdog]

By definition your argument is true TGD, the political and legal actors may not be effective and may be counter-effective on the sociological and media/cultural stage.

To clarify my original point tho, the civil/race rights and the womens rights struggles have left behind them lessons for all of the actors, both political/leagal and social/cultural and those that work through any means to achieve the end goal of equality for all. The patterns of how these battles go has been established, and you could almost write a manual for how to win them giving fairly explicit step by step stages with specific instructions for each stage in whatever medium someone is working through. All the false starts, all the mistakes have been made already and can be learned from (which isn't to say they won't be made again but that they should be made less often and with lesser detrimental consequences). The path to achieving equality has been laid out and the roadmap is getting fairly well detailed.

So I'll admit fault for using the word "activist" because it didn't make my point well. However I will say in response to the criticique of activists that you made that for virtually any social good there will always be a proportion of the population that aren't ready or willing or amenable to hear it. Without the force of law behind equality causes I'm not convinced society could have achieved equality in these contexts at all, and definitely not within the timescales it has happened. If you don't change the laws (for which you require activists by your definition) then it's too easy for discrimination to occur and not be regarded as something "wrong", because almost by definition it always remains something "normal" that is hard-coded into the society.

I also think those activists are probably necessary at the end of the day.

[Phatscotty]

12-13-14 year old kids are being asked to choose their gender in public schools.

Discuss

I can't emphasize enough about how easily gender can be the total opposite of a given biological sex. Gender can and is declared by everything to do with how one feels or thinks. I can't help but remind yet again that a person can declare themselves transgender one day, but then change their mind the day after that.

I would bet a testicle the number of offended women who feel their privacy was invaded or made to feel uncomfortable will absolutely dwarf the number of people these gay-marriage derived issues are supposed to protect. As usual, nothing to see here, move along....

[Phatscotty]

re OP: does it matter?

Idk DK, does it matter? At least there must be a reason, eh? Certainly this was never taught in a public school to all students before, so it's something brand new. Some might even call it radical. What do you think the reason is for the change in what is taught? ya know who would be perfect to ask that question? Some of the people who said this would never happen. They could tell us much better why they thought/said these kinds of things would have no place in public schools and that it was the parents place to handle such issues.

I already know most do not want to hear from those who said this is exactly what would happen...because they already said it and it was blown off and ignored as ridiculous. I suppose those who just a year ago said this would never happen will now take the blue pill and shrug 'so what?'

Shut up. You're a moron.

obviously! Oops, now it's an issue everyone is talking about so there is no longer any need to insult and attack others just because you fear what you don't understand. I always knew it was just a matter of time, and some if your shit ages like the finest wine

[Phatscotty]

PS what is your issue with this? I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you for this or against this, and why?

Traditional gender roles are necessary for society. The woman's job is to stay home, cook and clean, and tend the kids; the man's job is to go out and be the provider for the family. Many of today's societal ills can be traced back to our defiance of these gender roles.

Umm, specifically which societal ills can be attributed to this issue?

Decline in marriage, increase in divorce, homosexuality, trans-sexuality, school shootings, the national debt, global warming

Obamer.

Don't mean to bask so hardcore, but on the other hand I am pretty damn phat

Notyou - Do you understand now?
Mets - clearly the death of 'powdering the nose' is directly attributed to the prison/kitchen men used to refuse women an exit from. That's why you shouldn't lie and bullshit your juxtapositions. Ya see there is just no way in your bullshit scenario that a man could possibly 'go out and provide for the family' because clearly every man, traditionally, keep guard on the borders of the kitchen to make sure every woman stayed in the kitchen, monitor the woman's actions all day making sure she cleaned stuff or else the woman has to go back to kitchen prison. But the one thing you do have going for yourself is that your hate-based scenario of artificial gender roles generalizing men from the starting point of all history up until you got your college degree in political correctness.... and that is your statement seems to reinforce something which you already believe anyways in that women tend to the kids because fathers simply are not needed anymore and don't really add that much value to a child's life