First Grader Sent to Office, Investigated, for “Pronoun Mishap”

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Domo1

Sex is a biological factor in identity while gender is a social construct. And, as a social construct, gender has been used to socially engineer society in favor of those born with a penis. It will take a couple of generations, but, eventually, gender will go the way of race as a way of limiting someone's potential.

Racism still exists, but it's not something that is socially acceptable outside of white nationalist circles. Gender will go the same way; it will only be fundamentalists that want to discriminate when it comes to gender.

Like it or not, there are just some things better suited for males to do and others better suited to females.
I dont think it will ever be possible to eliminate the "social construct", at least not as long as we still need men and women(sperm and egg) to reproduce.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: CarlsBad

Show me "science" that suggest it is not? You obviously "believe" and have "a faith" in science... Please tell me about'Hypothesis" and "theory"-root word basically, (therapy)... Then tell us about "mental diseases"? Soldier's have Chaplains/Commissioned Officers to build their "faith". Are they/do they, suffer from "mental diseases"?..You'd better hope so!

I was being sarcastic. What's funny though is what I asked for probably exists, and then you ask for the negative of what would be considered an absurd study. It's reasonably accepted that Religion is fiction and people that use the word faith interchangeably with science are moronic.

It's like saying my 'faith' in a chain of reactions is similar to a drawing. That analogy is as bad as they come.

Faith itself is a word rooted in only dealing with the incoherent. Somehow without understanding 'what' is happening you understand 'how' is what it suggests. It's a total lack of evidence and critical thought and is essentially the equivalent to paranoid schizophrenia delusions of grandeur.

originally posted by: CarlsBad
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Show me science that suggest believing in God is healthy mental behavior.

I'll compare it instantly to many Mental Diseases.

But I'll be patient for that counter-evidence first.

Hmm isn't that fallacious.

A new account just for me? I'm touched.

a reply to: coop039

We basically don't need Sperm and Egg. I believe they can replicate both at this point with simply genetic material. Lots of moves over control of reproduction specifically are being made. We grew a sheep in a bag.


As for the anatomy of 'male v female' let's just look at Fighter Jets and question why there are few female combat pilots. The ones that there are, even sometimes have modified planes for them, and they all at a minimum have modified suits and masks. The point is, the Aircraft were designed for men, there is a safety risk simply in the thought it was designed for someone else, but handing over the controls. Equality would be creating Jets specifically for women. I agree the social construct could never end, but it's in the details of equality being a never ending issue, not that specifics can never be addressed. It seems endlessly positive when not diluted. I look at it more like this:

Them: Jesus now they want Fighter Jets!!
Me: Jesus, one day they will have Fighter Jets, it's inevitable.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Do you want to point to a specific fallacy or just sound smart?

en.wikipedia.org...

You also are more focused on trolling, so you forgot to make your 'statement' a question.

Eventually technology, centralization, gene therapy and other will make gender meaningless, so this is just one step in many. The reason nobody notices is because it has been happening for a while. It's a necessary change; the path of least resistance; conservation of energy. Change doesn't happen overnight. It seeps slowly into everything.

Think about muscles for a moment. There was a time before machines. Men and woman needed stronger bones and more muscle to survive in that world. This also includes mass domestication of farm animals and horses to a smaller extent. This has impacted men more than woman because men have so much more muscle. Similar things have happened with woman though. The result of these changes is independence from our body--and gender. Our society is like a pendulum always seeking a new center.

Whether you like it or not this is progress. We're having to redefine ourselves and it's increasingly independent from the past.

originally posted by: CarlsBad
a reply to: coop039

We basically don't need Sperm and Egg. I believe they can replicate both at this point with simply genetic material. Lots of moves over control of reproduction specifically are being made. We grew a sheep in a bag.


As for the anatomy of 'male v female' let's just look at Fighter Jets and question why there are few female combat pilots. The ones that there are, even sometimes have modified planes for them, and they all at a minimum have modified suits and masks. The point is, the Aircraft were designed for men, there is a safety risk simply in the thought it was designed for someone else, but handing over the controls. Equality would be creating Jets specifically for women. I agree the social construct could never end, but it's in the details of equality being a never ending issue, not that specifics can never be addressed. It seems endlessly positive when not diluted. I look at it more like this:

Them: Jesus now they want Fighter Jets!!
Me: Jesus, one day they will have Fighter Jets, it's inevitable.

There are few female combat pilots because fewer women sign up for duty. Do you think if the gov starts making equal numbers of fighter craft for men and women that more women would sign up for duty?

originally posted by: coop039

*snip*

Like it or not, there are just some things better suited for males to do and others better suited to females.
I dont think it will ever be possible to eliminate the "social construct", at least not as long as we still need men and women(sperm and egg) to reproduce.

This is increasingly untrue. Peruse my prior post for my thoughts on the matter. I do think new roles will emerge, but they'll be independent of gender, or other historical archetypes.

It's not just machines. It's everything. It's pharma. It's infrastructure. It's telecommunication. It's weaponry. It's computers. These changes and more are forcing us to pull from our bag of tricks.

The future is invention. It's frightening, why shouldn't it be.

a reply to: coop039

Yes.

And there are fewer pilots for far more reasons than that.

The issue isn't equality, soldiers are judged equally, but when it comes to equipment, the Women are more just filling the shoes of men.

Design of equipment doesn't have to be limited to a single anatomy. The female pilots there are fly very specific jets too.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Everyone needs to remember this is Cali and when Children & Families investigates, they will probably come after the parents that don't force their kids to transition.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Deaf Alien

How do we know that the kid even exists? How do we know that anyone really exists?

You know that is an inappropriate tactic used by someone who doesn't have a logical response to your point.

Seriously? That's your response? Going the tinfoil conspiracy theory route? On ATS where almost everyone screams FAKE NEWS! Where the unnamed sources are dismissed when they don't match their narratives?
Seriously?
I truly hope you are kidding.

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Domo1

Sex is a biological factor in identity while gender is a social construct. And, as a social construct, gender has been used to socially engineer society in favor of those born with a penis. It will take a couple of generations, but, eventually, gender will go the way of race as a way of limiting someone's potential.

Racism still exists, but it's not something that is socially acceptable outside of white nationalist circles. Gender will go the same way; it will only be fundamentalists that want to discriminate when it comes to gender.

Like it or not, there are just some things better suited for males to do and others better suited to females.
I dont think it will ever be possible to eliminate the "social construct", at least not as long as we still need men and women(sperm and egg) to reproduce.

I guess. Though, I find the idea of gender as a social construct more interesting than accepting the status quo. Once artificial wombs are a viable thing, and they almost are, the need for two people to come together (intercourse or whatever) to reproduce is done away with.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

If you are arguing that the entire point of the story is bs then we are arguing nothing, a nonoccurrence. If the story didn't happen then why didn't you just argue that?

Assuming that the story is correct, would you support a first grader transitioning to another sex? If yes, would you support the school system assisting in the situation?

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If you are arguing that the entire point of the story is bs then we are arguing nothing, a nonoccurrence. If the story didn't happen then why didn't you just argue that?

Assuming that the story is correct, would you support a first grader transitioning to another sex? If yes, would you support the school system assisting in the situation?

I never said that the story didn't happen. I said that they exaggerated it. Do you seriously think that girl spent one hour in the office being punished? That the experience was so traumatic for her? That the principal risked being charged child abuse for it? Losing job over it?

If the child is diagnosed with gender dysphoria after multiple sessions then of course. Not sure about the school system assisting because they are not qualified for that except to be accepting.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

What do think is more traumatic, a first grader being sent to the principal's office for an hour or a boy being called "him"?

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Deaf Alien

What do think is more traumatic, a first grader being sent to the principal's office for an hour or a boy being called "him"?

That is what is called "leading question". Of course it would be more traumatic to the girl depending on her personality.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

If this question is too personal, then tell me to screw. But do you have children?

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Parent's and teachers should be more worried at this stage that kids are not "having accidents" (i.e. peeing themselves)....

As long as they choose the correct gender neutral, non binary, unisex restroom it should be fine....ridiculous

originally posted by: Iostsheep
Minute my kid comes home saying the school said she can be a pony, is the minute I begin homeschooling.

The real decision would be if he-she decides on being a boy pony or girl pony....oh and be careful because I'm sure Uncle Chester prefers my little "Bronys"... wouldn't want little Chelsea to inadvertently give Chester something to fixate upon... bronys

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If this question is too personal, then tell me to screw. But do you have children?

Yup.