Biggest Gay Lobby Group in America Urges Schools to Ban Words ‘Boy’ and ‘Girl’

originally posted by: JadeStar
...
How interesting since the era Ekron grew up in (1950s) is considered the height of conservatism and yet that society was about anything but a recognition of individualism.

Why is it that the things we all accept as social progress were opposed by those who at the time identified themselves as conservative?

Fear of the future maybe?

Think about it.

What "social progress" are you talking about were opposed by those who identified themselves as conservatives?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Annee

Riiight, riight. Someone else has a different opinion than you and since you can't argue the point you accuse them of "extreme fear mongering"...

So it is "extreme fear mongering" to want each individual and each family unit/parents themselves decide the moral values and teachings of their children and not have someone else/the state decide for them?

Not all opinions are equally informed or valid. If you insisted to me that the sky was falling and I as an astronomer dismiss you on the basis of having a better view then arguing with you would be of little value to either of us, wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: JadeStar

Not all opinions are equally informed or valid. If you insisted to me that the sky was falling and I as an astronomer dismiss you on the basis of having a better view then arguing with you would be of little value to either of us, wouldn't you agree?

But how is an ideal better than another's based on political and moral views? You think a degree gives the state a better understanding of the needs of a child than that of the parents views and opinions of their own children?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JadeStar
...
How interesting since the era Ekron grew up in (1950s) is considered the height of conservatism and yet that society was about anything but a recognition of individualism.

Why is it that the things we all accept as social progress were opposed by those who at the time identified themselves as conservative?

Fear of the future maybe?

Think about it.

What "social progress" are you talking about were opposed by those who identified themselves as conservatives?

You name it.

Women voting.
Desegregation.
Women working.
Equal treatment for LGBT+ people

All were primarily opposed by those who feared the outcome and considered themselves "conservative".
Everyone from John Birch to George Wallace to Richard Nixon to Pat Buchanan.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JadeStar

Not all opinions are equally informed or valid. If you insisted to me that the sky was falling and I as an astronomer dismiss you on the basis of having a better view then arguing with you would be of little value to either of us, wouldn't you agree?

But how is an ideal better than another's based on political and moral views? You think a degree gives the state a better understanding of the needs of a child than that of the parents views and opinions of their own children?

I think education and the discipline involved with earning a degree means that the findings of those who specialize in studying child development have more weigh than an uneducated, fear-filled opinion from someone who believes in pseudoscience like the "electric universe".

If one is scientifically illiterate there's no point arguing physics or child psychology and development with them. The more qualified the person is the more suspicion people like you have of them. There is no point debating anything in that situation.


By the way did you ever answer her question: do you have children?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Annee

Riiight, riight. Someone else has a different opinion than you and since you can't argue the point you accuse them of "extreme fear mongering"...

Yes. From my perspective it is. Which makes it pointless for me to continue.

It's not difference of opinion. It's the extreme extent you want to take it.

I suggested you take it up with someone else. Someone who's interested in going where you want to go with it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Dude, you've turned this whole thing around completely backwards. The entire point of these innocent suggestions is that the school/state should NOT differentiate children as boys or girls when separating them into groups in order to allow them their own individuality and self identification, not to take it away from them.

I swear, you must be wearing blinders?

originally posted by: JadeStar

If one is scientifically illiterate there's no point arguing physics or child psychology and development with them. The more qualified the person is the more suspicion people like you have of them. There is no point debating anything in that situation.


By the way did you ever answer her question: do you have children?

So how does it all play out? You put a child through a decade or two of gender neutrality then say be what you want? I find that it is just the small percentage of the population with an issue, or confusion and it is more important to allow a child to grow in any direction they want without trying to apply gender neutrality they physical plumbing.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JadeStar

Not all opinions are equally informed or valid. If you insisted to me that the sky was falling and I as an astronomer dismiss you on the basis of having a better view then arguing with you would be of little value to either of us, wouldn't you agree?

But how is an ideal better than another's based on political and moral views? You think a degree gives the state a better understanding of the needs of a child than that of the parents views and opinions of their own children?

By the way did you ever answer her question: do you have children?

He did. He doesn't.

I've known several people throughout my years that had strong opinions on children. Then they had one. Everyone of them said its so different then they imagined. Nothing like they thought it would be.

Dr. Spock is the classic. After he married a woman with a teenage daughter, he said everything he thought was right was wrong.

a reply to: JadeStar

So you are talking about civil rights?

Let's see.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964. What groups voted for or against the most.

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
...
By party

The original House version:[20]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
...

en.wikipedia.org...

More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than democrats.

BTW, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't a creation by the Kennedy administration, it was an extension of the Republican party's Civil Rights Act of 1957-1960, and was a mirror of the Republican Civil Rights legislation from 1875.

But let's not get back in time since we are going out of topic.

Do you truly believe the state should make the decision of a child's identity instead of the parents/guardians?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So how does it all play out? You put a child through a decade or two of gender neutrality then say be what you want? I find that it is just the small percentage of the population with an issue, or confusion and it is more important to allow a child to grow in any direction they want without trying to apply gender neutrality they physical plumbing.

OMFG! Do you really thing treating school children as equals regardless of their sex or gender is somehow going to stop boys from being boys or girls from being girls or somehow promote confusion and then something about plumbing I can't figure out?

Yes, we are talking about a very very small percentage of kids here and doing a very small, transparent and effortless thing that may (does) make them feel less uncomfortable by not dividing them by boys and girls. It takes nothing away from cisgenedered boys and girls whatsoever and doesn't cause or promote transgender confusion or ideation.

originally posted by: EKron
OMFG! Do you really thing treating school children as equals regardless of their sex or gender is somehow going to stop boys from being boys or girls from being girls or somehow promote confusion and then something about plumbing I can't figure out?

My point is that gender distinction (boy/girl, he/she, man/woman etc) has everything to do with our physical differences than anything else, and we are not a unisex society. The distinction we should stop is what many see as a traditional defined boy/girl path, we should let them make their own paths that may cross back either.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: JadeStar

So you are talking about civil rights?

Let's see.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964. What groups voted for or against the most.

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
...
By party

The original House version:[20]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
...

en.wikipedia.org...

More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than democrats.

BTW, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't a creation by the Kennedy administration, it was an extension of the Republican party's Civil Rights Act of 1957-1960, and was a mirror of the Republican Civil Rights legislation from 1875.

But let's not get back in time since we are going out of topic.

Do you truly believe the state should make the decision of a child's identity instead of the parents/guardians?

I didn't say Republican did I? I said "conservative".

Google the term "Dixiecrat". Obviously you have no idea that there were and are Democrats who also identify as "conservative". The fact is that conservatives (regardless of which of the two parties they belong to) have always wanted to put brakes on social progress. It's part of why they are considered "conservative".

That you miss this basic fact tells me your knowledge of politics is equal to your knowledge of physics.

originally posted by: JadeStar
...
If one is scientifically illiterate there's no point arguing physics or child psychology and development with them. The more qualified the person is the more suspicion people like you have of them. There is no point debating anything in that situation.

By the way did you ever answer her question: do you have children?

wow...really? so your argument is to use a completely unrelated topic, claim that i must be illiterate because i would not bow to your views and also that a degree is going to allow a stranger to know a child better than the parents?...

roflmao... wow...

originally posted by: JadeStar

I didn't say Republican did I? I said "conservative".

Google the term "Dixiecrat". Obviously you have no idea that there were and are Democrats who also identify as "conservative". The fact is that conservatives (regardless of which of the two parties they belong to) have always wanted to put brakes on social progress. It's part of why they are considered "conservative".

That you miss this basic fact tells me your knowledge of politics is equal to your knowledge of physics.

Yes! The vote on the Civil Rights requires the Demographic Location of votes to be completely accurate.

And I was a Republican for about 40 years ---- until they became insane. They were not as they are today.

originally posted by: JadeStar
...
Google the term "Dixiecrat". Obviously you have no idea that there were and are Democrats who also identify as "conservative". The fact is that conservatives (regardless of which of the two parties they belong to) have always wanted to put brakes on social progress. It's part of why they are considered "conservative".

You are actually assuming that the "progressive agenda" must be good because you agree with it and you have been told they are new when they are not. You also assume that the ideas of conservatives must be bad because we want a smaller government...

Obviously people like you forget that it was republicans who brought up Civil Rights and fought for them in the first place, including equal rights for women, and all people...

BTW, are you even aware that the word neocon, something that "progressives" and democrats try to use as derogative against republicans, conservatives etc, actually refers as it was originally to democrats who for some mysterious reason turned republicans?

Kind of strange to have democrats who were in favor of slavery join the ranks of republicans who were the ones who brought up civil rights liberties, and voted in higher percentages for such liberties than democrats ever did... Unless that is, the reason for joining the republicans was to destroy the party from within.

originally posted by: JadeStar
That you miss this basic fact tells me your knowledge of politics is equal to your knowledge of physics.

That you try to use my opinion in a completely unrelated topic, physics has nothing to do with politics, tells me that you don't know a thing about either one topic.

Not to mention that people like you actually think that throwing around words like "physics'" makes you more knowledgeable on such topics... Maybe if i repeat the word "physics, physics, physics, physics" you would think I am more knowledgeable about "politics"?... Things that make you go hummm...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JadeStar

I didn't say Republican did I? I said "conservative".

Google the term "Dixiecrat". Obviously you have no idea that there were and are Democrats who also identify as "conservative". The fact is that conservatives (regardless of which of the two parties they belong to) have always wanted to put brakes on social progress. It's part of why they are considered "conservative".

That you miss this basic fact tells me your knowledge of politics is equal to your knowledge of physics.

Yes! The vote on the Civil Rights requires the Demographic Location of votes to be completely accurate.

And I was a Republican for about 40 years ---- until they became insane. They were not as they are today.

My dad was too.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JadeStar
...
Google the term "Dixiecrat". Obviously you have no idea that there were and are Democrats who also identify as "conservative". The fact is that conservatives (regardless of which of the two parties they belong to) have always wanted to put brakes on social progress. It's part of why they are considered "conservative".

You are actually assuming that the "progressive agenda" must be good because you agree with it and you have been told they are new when they are not.

No, all I see is that what you term the "progressive agenda" often boils down to just treating people with equal dignity and respect and that those opposed to that have always been on the wrong side of history. PS: critical thinking skills or lack thereof matter regardless of which subject one is discussing.

k thx for playin' this has gone well off topic so i'm done.

originally posted by: Annee
...
And I was a Republican for about 40 years ---- until they became insane. They were not as they are today.

Wasn't that until lifelong democrats joined the republican party, neocons, and destroyed the party from within?...

Could you tell me how does it makes sense that southern democrats who were in favor of slavery, decided one day to join the republicans who were in favor of abolishing slavery and were in favor for civil rights as a whole?...

How does a party which fought for civil rights turn against civil rights?

The republican party was the "party of the people". But hey, maybe the internationalists needed the destruction of the republican party and republican ideas. After all, even the Constitution states that every state within the union must guarantee a "republican form of government".

a reply to: JadeStar

No, all I see is that you term the "progressive agenda" of giving more power to the state as "people being treated with equal dignity and respect". But that's not the case. More so when your vision of "giving people equal dignity and respect" equals to having the state forcing everyone to abide by what the state decides "is goodness and equality".

If you actually think that having the state forcefully make the people follow certain political views will make everything alright and "everyone equal", you haven't been paying enough attention in history class.

I wonder why all those leftist countries that professed to be bringing equality and only good things to all, and tried to force people to abide to their views turned into dictatorships?... Humm...