"Gay movement: the sex you're attracted to is hardwired at birth, even though there's no gay gene.
Trans movement: your sex is entirely fluid, even though there is a definitive sex chromosome.
LGBT movement: you must believe both of those things at once or else you're a bigot."
Vivek Ramaswamy
"The whole LGBT movement went from "stay out of our bedroom" to " hey there kindergartner, you should know what happens in our bedroom" real fast."
Will Reilly
"The Left: Student loans should be forgiven bc18 year olds were too young to fully understand what they were doing. Society failed them.
Also The Left: Kids know their true selves. Their identity should be affirmed no matter what the cost. Discussion & asking qs are hate crimes.""
Mauer the Bulldog (her pseudonym, not mine)
63 comments:
The last one is a great example of the left talking out both sides of their mouths. Here's another:
The Left: "Minors can't consent to having sex with adults."
Also the Left: "Teachers can teach sexual matters to students without parental consent."
My favorite is the Twitter post yesterday that said something like, "If we ban schools from religious instruction, then we'll agree to ban teachers talking about sexuality.". Apparently the idiot liberal didn't know that religious instruction was already banned n public schools, and that most on the right would be happy to maintain the status quo, while squelching the teaching of sexuality to young children.
It does raise a question though. Since sexuality does (at some point) actually involve sex, doesn't it seem strange to expect children to make lifelong, irreversible, decisions like this before they are old enough to understand what they are deciding between?
What do you all mean by "teaching of sexuality" in school? What do you think would be happening in school classrooms?
Are you opposed to something as unobjectionable as, "some people are attracted to the opposite gender and some to the same gender. Sometimes men marry women and sometimes men marry men. Some people who are born looking like they're a boy will later realize they're female..."?
In other words, just letting students know this is just reality... are you opposed to that, say for instance, in the case of kids picking on a student with two moms...?
Craig...
"doesn't it seem strange to expect children to make lifelong, irreversible, decisions like this before they are old enough to understand what they are deciding between?"
It DOES seem strange! Almost like it's something that isn't even happening in the real world and just another crazy nonsense conspiracy theory.
"What do you all mean by "teaching of sexuality" in school? What do you think would be happening in school classrooms?"
1. Any teaching about "sexuality/sex ed/etc" should be age appropriate.
2. Any teaching about "sexuality/sex ed/etc" should be transparent.
3. Any teaching of "sexuality/sex ed/etc" should probably stay away from specific techniques.
4. What would be/is happening is a good question. I think the lack of detail is why parents are concerned.
5. As with the FL law, as opposed to your vague questions, I'd think that "age appropriate" is the key.
Interesting that you're certain that "students know" this, yet there's this increasing demand to teach students what they already "know".
One line, that we keep seeing reports of is teachers telling kids "don't tell your parents about...". Surely you don't think that adults secretly talking to young kids about sexuality, is appropriate do you?
Yes it does, yet you have been supportive of minor children making and acting on those sorts of decisions.
It's strange how many "conspiracy theories" over the past few years have proven to be True.
"case of kids picking on a student with two moms"
When you use the term "case" it implies that you are speaking of an actual incident. If you are speaking of an actual incident, then provide proof. If you are not, then please rephrase your claim to be more accurate.
What about instances of bullying/peer pressure to push minor children toward identifying as trans because they don't conform to gender stereotypes?
Dan will do or say anything to support sexual perversion and immorality. For most of the teachers I've ever had, I never knew anything about their personal lives. I can't say as I recall anyone having a picture of their spouse on their desks. Through most of my elementary school years, I don't think I knew any teacher's first name, much less anything about their personal lives.
All sexual talk while I was in 1-8 grade consisted of clinical descriptions of the reproductive system. There's really no need for any teacher to provide anything else, except to encourage kids...including high school...to remain chaste for the good of their own futures.
As to what teachers are doing, the Florida bill led to too many TikTok vids of teachers insisting they plan to promote their perversions as if they give a damn about what's best for the kids as opposed to what's best for the narrative and their own guilt at succumbing to perversion. Some of these are dealing with the youngest of children, including pre-school. No one who is in charge of the children of other people should in any way so much as reference sexual issues, most specifically LGBT perversions. No rainbow flags, no piercings, tats and multi-colored hair, no shirts with pro-perv memes or expressions. We here in the land of normal and moral call it "letting kids be kids".
Craig... "I'd think that "age appropriate" is the key."
Of course good educators always want to use age appropriate teaching in any subject or topic. The problem with the legislation is that there is no definition for age appropriate. Who gets to decide? Based upon what? This is part of the reason why the law as passed is probably not constitutional...it's too vague.
But if experts agree that having a discussion in the 1st grade about some kids have two mommies is age appropriate, then you're OK with that?
Craig...
"One line, that we keep seeing reports of is teachers telling kids "don't tell your parents about...". Surely you don't think that adults secretly talking to young kids about sexuality, is appropriate do you?"
Nope. Nor do I think that's happening in the real world. Because of course it isn't. Don't be crazy. I'm guessing it would do no good to ask you to try to support this crazy sounding claim, would it? "One claim we keep hearing..."
Jesus have mercy.
Here's the thing, modern trump style conservatives who don't give a d*** about facts or truths make up stupid claims like this to scare conservatives who don't think these things through closely.
You can't support this, can you?
"What about instances of bullying/peer pressure to push minor children toward identifying as trans because they don't conform to gender stereotypes?"
Another stupidly false scare mongering claim that you can't support because it doesn't happen in the real world.
And of course, LGBTQ kids get picked on and beaten up all the time in the real world. I've seen it myself when I was in school. You can't be this completely naive, can you? I can, of course, provide links to instances, I'm sure. But, you can't be a grown a** man and not know this.
If you want to tell me that you're ignorant of widespread abuse and oppression of LGBTQ kids in school, I'll provide you the data.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/08/walking-through-hailstorm/discrimination-against-lgbt-youth-us-schools#
That took one minute to find the first case...
"When Virgina Gaffey’s 8-year-old daughter was surrounded, smacked and shoved around by six boys and girls at recess last month, it wasn’t the first time she had been harassed at the Tucker Elementary School.
It was a new school year, but the torment that started the year before when she transferred from a Catholic school escalated into a gang assault.
Her mother, who is a lesbian, said that was the reason for the attack.
"What really hurts is all this is happening because of me,” said Gaffey..
https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/archive/2007/10/13/lesbian-mom-says-daughter-s/39019005007/
I could go on and on and I know I can go on and on, because I've seen it happen in my own life. I've heard about it from Every single one of my LGBTQ friends. This is not uncommon.
Do you live such a privileged life removed from the reality of the oppression of LGBTQ folks that you weren't aware of this?
If so, would it help you to read more reports and hear more stories so that you could have more empathy and begin to take a stand against the oppression happening in our nation?
So, in spite of the fact that this Florida law is not literally called, "Don't say Gay Law," we see that age-appropriate books like "I am Jazz" are being removed from school libraries due to this law. The target age range for this book is 4-8 years old, so, age appropriate, no messages about their "naughty bits," just a message of acceptance for people whoever they are.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-school-district-pulls-2-152200657.html
I'll note that there are some problems from a progressive angle on this book (referring too easily to stereotypical girl/boy themes), but still, it's been removed from libraries in Florida, and probably by people who haven't read the book. They seem quite intent on silencing ANY talk about LGBTQ issues. So, maybe the assigned "Don't Say Gay" name is appropriate.
Will you condemn Florida parents and schools for bowing down to far right book banners? IF the issue is just being age-appropriate, then it seems like you would, if you were serious about it.
Also, I'm curious:
1. "Gay movement: the sex you're attracted to is hardwired at birth, even though there's no gay gene.
Do any of you doubt this? People ARE naturally, innately on a spectrum with some people definitely being attracted to people of the same gender and some people definitely being attracted to people of the opposite gender and other people being somewhere between these two positions. This is observable reality.
Do you have ANY reason to doubt it?
Also, WHY would you doubt it and WHY is it not enough to know that you fellas are naturally attracted to the opposite gender and there's nothing that could possibly change that, "even though there's no straight gene..."? And, likewise, some men are naturally attracted to other men and there's nothing that could change that?
If the testimony of millions of lesbians and gay men is not enough for you, why is not YOUR OWN testimony sufficient for you?
Do you think you're REALLY straight, since there's no "straight gene?"
2. "Trans movement: your sex is entirely fluid, even though there is a definitive sex chromosome."
There's also definitive, demonstrable biological variations within gender, why is that not enough for you? And no. Gender is NOT "entirely fluid." Some people are solidly male and some are solidly female and there is nothing fluid about it IN THOSE PEOPLE.
But that's not everyone's experience in the real world. Why is that not enough for you?
Marshal...
"There's really no need for any teacher to provide anything else, except to encourage kids...including high school...to remain chaste for the good of their own futures. "
Good reasons to have age appropriate discussions about gender and sexuality in school (and in Sunday School and at home and in Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, etc, etc).
1. There's nothing "dirty" or unhealthy or bad about sexuality or gender. Why wouldn't we talk about natural real world conditions? When we unnaturally silence some topics, we give the impression there's something wrong with that topic.
2. When people grow up with unnatural fear of talking about a topic (see 1.), it negatively impacts their sexuality and can lead to marital and other problems later in life.
3. Because LGBTQ people have been historically demonized, chastised, targeted for attacks and bullying, ostracized and otherwise oppressed. That's just a stone cold fact. Part of what needs to be done to stop this historic oppression has already started to happen and needs to continue: People need to know that being transgender is not unnatural or "of the devil." The little 5 year old who feels like they are a girl even though they were born with a penis needs to know there's nothing wrong with those feelings. The eight year old who finds themselves attracted to people of the same gender need to know that there's nothing wrong with that. AND CIS-gender, straight kids need to know there's nothing wrong with being LGBT or Q. ONLY in that circumstance will oppression end.
There are three HUGE reasons right off the top of my head, and I could add more, but I don't want to overload you all with solid moral reasoning.
"1. There's nothing "dirty" or unhealthy or bad about sexuality or gender. Why wouldn't we talk about natural real world conditions? When we unnaturally silence some topics, we give the impression there's something wrong with that topic."
From a Christian perspective, this is absolutely untrue. Any sexual behavior outside a marital relationship (that being the union of a man and a woman...and NOT a man who thinks he's a woman or a woman who thinks she's a man) is sinful..."dirty"...and all people, especially minors, are justly and righteously to be discouraged from participating in it.
In general, there is much harm related to sexual relations outside the legitimate marital union of one man and one woman. For instance, while pregnancy is the purpose of sexual intercourse, pregnancy by those unable/unprepared or unwilling to care for the child invited into existence by the behavior results in various harms to both the mother and the child, the most egregious of these is the invention of the false premise the conceived is somehow not a person and thus that actual person can be killed. Also, promiscuity results where encouragements to resist indulging is not strongly presented, and risk of disease increases.
So, depending on how and when such subjects are broached, there can be indeed something wrong with the topic minors are best served by delaying introduction to the subject.
"2. When people grow up with unnatural fear of talking about a topic (see 1.), it negatively impacts their sexuality and can lead to marital and other problems later in life."
Myth and fantasy. No one is suggesting instilling "unnatural fear" about discussions of sexual topics. The issue here is age appropriateness. Schools are not meant for such things and parents are. Nice strawman.
3. Dan's favorite canard. How the disordered have been treated in the past is no argument for introducing the subject of disordered sexuality and sexual practices to minors. Nothing abusive experienced by the disordered LGBT community (that would be legitimate abuses, and not the BS whining of the community which Dan perpetrates as well), are already covered in any encouragement by adults to treat people kindly. That's just a stone cold fact.
Dan thinks promoting the lie that LGBT are "normal" or "just like us" needs to stop, especially given those like Dan so routinely fail to support the premise, but instead choose to lie about it putting our young at risk. The little five year old who believes himself to be of the other sex needs to be lovingly guided toward the truth, just as the little five year old who believes himself to be a horse would be guided toward the truth. Indeed, it is absolutely wrong to lie and Dan's position is lying. The eight year old who finds himself attracted to people of the same gender needs to know the attraction is unlikely to last, that it is disordered and that like so many irrational feelings one can't shake, it is one such a child is best served overcoming or with which such a child is best served learning to cope. Morally bankrupt adults who enable such beliefs and desires in children are abusers...evil and dangerous to the well-being of minors.
It's absurd that anyone who postures as a "thinking" adult would suggest enabling disorder and immorality is necessary to prevent abuses against the disordered and immoral. Laughingly absurd and abusive as hell. There's not a shred of "moral" is such reasoning. It's not even "reasoning". Dan is simply promoting unholy perversion and immorality. That's common...S.O.P. ... among the "progressive" "Christian".
"Who gets to decide?"
In our governmental system it should be the legislative branch.
"Based upon what?"
Good question. In what other realm of society is it age appropriate to discuss sex with 5-10 year ole children?
"This is part of the reason why the law as passed is probably not constitutional...it's too vague."
Finally, a reasonable and rational objection to the law. Although, I suspect that if they were more specific, you'd still object and mis characterize the law.
"Nor do I think that's happening in the real world. Because of course it isn't. Don't be crazy. I'm guessing it would do no good to ask you to try to support this crazy sounding claim, would it?"
This is quite the unsupported claim, I don't suppose you'd care to support your claim.
I can find anecdotal evidence if you'd like, but the likelihood that you'd accept it is minimal, so why would I bother.
https://delawarevalleyjournal.com/they-wont-let-us-tell-the-parents-whistleblower-teacher-on-great-valley-schools-transgender-policy/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10665389/School-nurse-suspended-revealing-student-11-puberty-blockers.html
"You can't support this, can you?"
1. That's the reason I phrased the comment the way I did. I wasn't making an objective statement of fact, I was accurately representing some things that are out there. I know that it's confusing for you sometimes, but when you respond based on your assumptions about what you think I might have meant, it's likely to be wrong.
2. I just posted a couple of links that go beyond anecdotal.
3. Although you love to act is if anecdotal stories prove your claims, I generally don't.
"Another stupidly false scare mongering claim that you can't support because it doesn't happen in the real world.'
That's quite a claim, without a single bit of evidence to back it up. Why would you expect anyone to simply accept your unsupported claims, while demanding proof of everything anyone else says? Double standard much? FYI, I didn't make a claim (certainly not a "scare mongering" claim), I asked a question. Do you understand the difference?
"Do you live such a privileged life removed from the reality of the oppression of LGBTQ folks that you weren't aware of this?"
I never said I hadn't heard of things like this. What I did do, is expect you to live up to the standard you demand of others and to provide proof of the claims you make.
"it's been removed from libraries in Florida, and probably by people who haven't read the book."
Again with the unsupported claims.
"They seem quite intent on silencing ANY talk about LGBTQ issues. So, maybe the assigned "Don't Say Gay" name is appropriate."
"Appropriate" is clearly subjective. The problem is that just because you consider something "appropriate" doesn't mean that your claim is accurate. I guess I'm sticking with accuracy as being important.
"Do any of you doubt this?"
Yes.
"Do you have ANY reason to doubt it?"
Yes.
"And, likewise, some men are naturally attracted to other men and there's nothing that could change that?"
How interesting. You are insisting that 100% of all "men who are attracted to other men" are 100% completely born unable to change that. That's quite a claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jul/21/gay-man-attracted-to-women
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27631975/
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a32305065/sexplain-it-gay-or-bi-sex-with-women/
Maybe this "once gay, always gay" isn't quite as cut and dried as you'd like to think it is.
"If the testimony of millions of lesbians and gay men is not enough for you, why is not YOUR OWN testimony sufficient for you?"
Unless this anecdotal "testimony" is that 100% of "gays" are 100% same sex attracted, then it doesn't support your claim. That's the point.
"There's also definitive, demonstrable biological variations within gender, why is that not enough for you?"
Why is some vague, unsupported, non specific claim "not enough", I wonder...
"And no. Gender is NOT "entirely fluid." Some people are solidly male and some are solidly female and there is nothing fluid about it IN THOSE PEOPLE."
How do you objectively define "solidly female" and "solidly male"?
But that's not the claim being made. The claim is that "trans" describes a totally fluid option. That "trans" can mean virtually anything.
"But that's not everyone's experience in the real world. Why is that not enough for you?"
Again with the vague, anecdotal, general, assertion treated as if it should simply be accepted as reality absent any actual proof.
Craig... "Good question. In what other realm of society is it age appropriate to discuss sex with 5-10 year ole children?"
Church. Families. Health and mental health centers.
Community organizations.
YMCA. Daycare centers. Friend gatherings. Picnics. Community gatherings...
In short, I can't think of any place it's not appropriate to speak about something as natural as sex and gender in a responsible manner. Sex is not dirty or evil or wrong, it's a natural, healthy part of life.
Imagine someone asking: "At what other place is it appropriate to talk about brushing your teeth and eating healthy with children...?" Why would we NOT speak about natural, normal, healthy matters of human sexuality or gender?
NOTE: You said that from now on everyone needs to provide support for fact claims. I just made a fact claim that sex and gender are just a natural, healthy part of life. When I make a self-evident claim like that, do you really want me to provide "support" for that?
Look: Do you recognize that when people are talking about "sex education" in schools for five year olds that no one is talking about showing them porn or encouraging them to engage in sex acts? What is age-inappropriate to talk with five year olds about?
Is it okay, with you, to say, "Sometimes boys like boys and sometimes they like girls, and that's okay... there's no need to be mean to them because they seem different to you..."?
Dan: "There's nothing "dirty" or unhealthy or bad about sexuality or gender. Why wouldn't we talk about natural real world conditions?"
Marshal: "From a Christian perspective, this is absolutely untrue"
You going to stand with Marshal on this? That it's WRONG to say that there's nothing dirty or unhealthy about sexuality or gender?
Will you demand that he support that ridiculous claim?
+++++
Craig: "One line, that we keep seeing reports of is teachers telling kids "don't tell your parents about...". Surely you don't think that adults secretly talking to young kids about sexuality, is appropriate do you?"
Dan: "Nope. Nor do I think that's happening in the real world."
Craig: "This is quite the unsupported claim, I don't suppose you'd care to support your claim."
Do you understand how "talking" works? YOU made an unsupported claim. I'm saying it's a ridiculous, stupidly false claim. You want me to "prove" that your unsupported claim is not factual? I PROVE it by pointing to everything written ever and noting that it's not found in all of recorded history.
If you want to prove your claim, the onus is on YOU to support it. Not for me to read through all literature through all ages and languages to affirm it didn't happen.
That's how making claims works.
On that point, Craig said... "I can find anecdotal evidence if you'd like, but the likelihood that you'd accept it is minimal, so why would I bother. "
You can cite gossip with no support and you think I wouldn't accept it? Well, given that that is literally not factual support, but just gossip, no, I wouldn't accept it. Where is the school policy that has "reports of is teachers telling kids "don't tell your parents about..."?
That is literally empty-headed gossip and rumor-mongering.
Look, just admit it: You can't support the claim. It's your rule, after all. If you can't support it, don't say it.
Craig... "How interesting. You are insisting that 100% of all "men who are attracted to other men" are 100% completely born unable to change that. That's quite a claim. "
I didn't claim that.
Orientation is on a spectrum. You know this, right? Some people are solidly heterosexual ("solidly" meaning they identify only as heterosexual and have no desire at all to find the same gender as an option for a sexual partner) and some are solidly homosexual. Others are somewhere in between or other.
Are you not aware of this? If you doubt it, WHY do you doubt it? Do you have a guess in your head that all these gay and lesbian (and straight) people are all lying? If that's your guess, where is the support for that claim?
Craig, are you 100% heterosexual?
Are you exclusively, only attracted to women?
Has it always been that way, for as long as you know and that you never were sexually attracted to men/boys?
Could you change your orientation, even if you reallllly wanted to, and find a way to be sexually attracted to men?
Can you prove that you were always heterosexual and that it's an innate condition for you? or do you think it was a choice that you made?
If you can't prove it, do you think gay and lesbian people need to prove their orientation? If so, why?
Orientation is innate. It may be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual or some variation of these, but it is innate and natural. And, MY OPINION is that it is clearly a good thing in and of itself, wherever one lies on that spectrum. Because, why wouldn't it be a good thing?
Craig...
"That's quite a claim, without a single bit of evidence to back it up."
YOU made the claim. I'm saying it didn't happen in the real world. The onus is on YOU to support the claim. Just as a reminder, here is YOUR claim:
""One line, that we keep seeing reports of is teachers telling kids "don't tell your parents about...". Surely you don't think that adults secretly talking to young kids about sexuality, is appropriate do you?""
YOU said "we keep seeing reports..." as if that happens in the real world. You've provided no support for these alleged "reports." What you eventually provided (after the fact) was a link to some unsupported gossip referencing some unnamed "source," as if that settled it.
Look, I don't care if there are "reports" about gossip. That's not what I consider an authoritative report. That's just gossip and unsupported gossip, at that. Gossip is not the same as a report and it's just not trustworthy.
Perhaps what you're saying is that you view vague gossip from unnamed "sources" a trustworthy report. You then, BASED upon these unsupported gossip claims, asked, "You don't think think adults secretly talking to young kids about sexuality, is appropriate do you?" Asking that question AS IF you were accepting the unsupported gossip as trustworthy.
It ain't.
Craig...
"Why would you expect anyone to simply accept your unsupported claims, while demanding proof of everything anyone else says?"
I don't, except in the case of obvious, self-evident claims. Sexuality IS a normal, natural and healthy part of human life. I'm not providing support for that because no one rational doubts it. I COULD provide support for it, but some things are so obvious as to not need support.
I might also say something about the earth orbiting the sun and I'm also not going to provide support for that. It's an established reality.
Do you agree that this is reasonable?
Craig...
"Double standard much?"
No double standard. YOU made a claim based (we later learn) on unsupported gossip. You used that gossipy unsupported claim to ask a question with a self-evident/obvious answer (No, it's not okay for teachers to tell kids to keep secrets... at least as a norm) as if anyone supported teachers counseling secrecy or as if it happened anywhere as a matter of policy.
I'm saying it doesn't and I say that because there is no EVIDENCE that it happens. If you have evidence that isn't unnamed sources passing on gossip, the onus is on you to support it.
I don't tend to make any such claims based upon gossip and unnamed sources. Hence, no double standard.
Marshal... "From a Christian perspective, this is absolutely untrue. Any sexual behavior outside a marital relationship (that being the union of a man and a woman...and NOT a man who thinks he's a woman or a woman who thinks she's a man) is sinful..."dirty"...and all people, especially minors, are justly and righteously to be discouraged from participating in it."
There are multiple claims there, Marshal. I think the blog owner is going to want some authoritative source if you want to make that kind of claim. Or you can clarify it's just your opinion and not an authoritative, objectively factual claim that you can support... maybe the blog owner will cut you some slack.
Also, I'll remind you of what I said:
"There's nothing "dirty" or unhealthy or bad about sexuality or gender.
Why wouldn't we talk about natural real world conditions?"
If you're going to claim that there is something dirty, unhealthy or bad about sexuality, (my claim), what is it?
IF you want to make the SEPARATE claim that there are some things we can do with our natural, beautiful human sexuality that are NOT healthy (for instance, rape, sexual assault, molesting a minor, etc), I could agree with you. But those are instances of doing something bad/harmful with what is natural and beautiful (sexuality), NOT of sexuality itself being dirty, unhealthy or bad.
Right?
Marshal... "and all people, especially minors, are justly and righteously to be discouraged from participating in it."
And who do you think should enforce this unsupported opinion of yours? Do we need a Department of Sex to implement your rules? With maybe a priest or Jimmy Swaggart type to spell out the rules? How about masturbation... are you going to decide for children and other families what is and isn't acceptable about touching yourself?
No thanks.
"Church. Families. Health and mental health centers.
Community organizations.
YMCA. Daycare centers. Friend gatherings. Picnics. Community gatherings..."
That's quite a lot of folx you think should be discussing sex with really young children. I guess you put a lot of faith in the random folx who work or volunteer in those organizations. How many of those discussions should exclude families?
"When I make a self-evident claim like that, do you really want me to provide "support" for that?"
This is an interesting question. The obvious answer is no. Yet, if I say no, you'll simply label every claim you make as "self evident" and try to avoid proving your claims. It stil seems strange that you'd put blanket trust in all sorts of random people to tell small children who knows what about sex.
"Is it okay, with you, to say, "Sometimes boys like boys and sometimes they like girls, and that's okay... there's no need to be mean to them because they seem different to you..."?"
Are you suggesting that the above is the absolute extent of what's being taught to 5-10 year old children? If you are, then provide proof before I answer the question.
" "Nope. Nor do I think that's happening in the real world."
This is a very specific claim of fact that you failed to support.
My "claim" is merely a report of what I've seen. Do you understand that I'm offering a general statement about what I've seen, but NOT making a claim that it's 100% factual at this time. Of course, I did ask a question, which you ignored.
It's so much fun when you come to my blog and try to take charge. But thanks for acknowledging that you won't take people's lived experiences at face value when they don't agree with your narrative.
I was correct in not wasting my time searching for evidence you've already dismissed.
"You are insisting that 100% of all "men who are attracted to other men" are 100% completely born unable to change that."
"some are solidly homosexual."
If "solidly homosexual" doesn't mean "100%" homosexual, and that someone who is "solidly homosexual" is "born unable to change that". then please explain the minute semantic nuances you are dredging up.
I see no reason to answer your absurd questions based on bullshit.
"Craig, are you 100% heterosexual?"
Presumably.
"Are you exclusively, only attracted to women?'
So far, yes.
"Has it always been that way, for as long as you know and that you never were sexually attracted to men/boys?"
As far as I know.
"Could you change your orientation, even if you reallllly wanted to, and find a way to be sexually attracted to men?"
I've never really considered trying. I suspect if I "realllllllllllllly" wanted to I could give it a go.
"Can you prove that you were always heterosexual and that it's an innate condition for you? or do you think it was a choice that you made?"
Certainly not to any standard you'd accept.
"If you can't prove it, do you think gay and lesbian people need to prove their orientation? If so, why?"
Where did I say that I "think gay and lesbian people need to prove their orientation?"? If I didn't say that, then why would I justify something I didn't say?
"Orientation is innate. It may be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual or some variation of these, but it is innate and natural."
That's quite a claim, can you prove it to 100% certainty? What specific part of the brain governs this immutable, unchangeable, "orientation"? How do "homosexual, asexual" orientations fit with the evolutionary imperative, "From an evolutionary gene's-eye perspective, the genes are immortal, and our role, the meaning of life, is to perpetuate the genes. In a few centuries, all traces of our existence as human individuals -- memories of us, all our accomplishments --will likely be gone and forgotten, except for genes that survive from those of us who successfully reproduced through the generations."? How do those "innate and natural orientations" facilitate survival of the species?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-the-meaning-of-your-life-to-make-babies/
And, MY OPINION is that it is clearly a good thing in and of itself, wherever one lies on that spectrum. Because, why wouldn't it be a good thing?
"I'm saying it didn't happen in the real world."
Are you so stupid or blinded by hubris to miss the reality that "it didn't happen in the real world" is a claim?
"we keep seeing reports..."
Which is a True statement. Are you suggesting that there are no reports? That those reports are false? How could you possibly judge something to be false with absolutely zero criteria to make that judgement?
"I don't, except in the case of obvious, self-evident claims."
Well done. You don't need to prove things that you have decided are "obvious, self-evident claims", to you. This notion that you can self validate your claims would be hilarious, if it wasn't such a pathetic case of self aggrandizement.
Interesting that when it's a narrative you support "lived experience" is a completely valid form of proof and beyond questioning, yet when it's something you choose not to believe "lived experience" becomes "gossip".
FYI. you missed two links to news stories about school officials who are doing exactly what you call "gossip".
Perhaps you should have read my comments, before you spewed a bunch of bullshit and wasted a bunch of my time. The problem is you keep making these idiotic "this never happens" claims, and then once I provide one example your claim becomes more bullshit.
Craig... "That's quite a lot of folx you think should be discussing sex with really young children. I guess you put a lot of faith in the random folx who work or volunteer in those organizations. How many of those discussions should exclude families?"
I should add the caveat that any place where such discussions would potentially happen would need to be trusted places. So, I trust the people in my church to talk with my kids about anything. I trust the people in our circles we travel (generally) to talk with my kids. Of course, if one attends a church (or community group) with questionable people, I wouldn't trust them to talk with my kids about sexual matters, or money, or bubble gum or anything.
Always, start with trustworthy people and processes.
My only point is that there's nothing innately wrong with talking about matters of sexuality and gender at school or church or wherever, as long as you're dealing with people you trust.
And no, UNLESS a parent is abusing a child or the child is otherwise at risk, families should never be excluded from any of these sorts of conversations. As I've already made clear.
Craig... "Are you suggesting that there are no reports? That those reports are false? How could you possibly judge something to be false with absolutely zero criteria to make that judgement?"
Craig... "FYI. you missed two links to news stories about school officials who are doing exactly what you call "gossip"."
I didn't miss them. I read your two "sources," which were both from far right wing websites with records of passing on false claims or twisted facts. In neither of your two "sources" was there any verification of the facts being claimed. In one of your two sources, the accuser was not even named and in the other, the accuser didn't provide proof of her claim and she exposed herself as someone who was opposed to supporting LGBTQ kids and their families.
COULD it be possible that these two gossipers who didn't support their claims with any verifiable facts who were cited with no support on two far right "sources..." COULD it be possible these unsupported claims actually happened? Yes. But those stories don't prove it in any way and I'm quite dubious, given the sources and the accusers and their gossipy ways.
Oh, and if you need support for my claim that we should be wary of gossips, here you go (if you accept the source)...
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness." (Ex. 23)
"Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool." (Prov 10)
"With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors, but through knowledge the righteous escape." (Prod 11)
"Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. " (1 Tim 5)
"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.
They are full of envy, murder,
strife,
deceit and
malice.
They are gossips,
slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil...
they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,
they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Rom 1)
I assume you're familiar with the source and no link is needed?
Craig... "You don't need to prove things that you have decided are "obvious, self-evident claims", to you."
Look at what I said. I CAN. I just won't bother with claims that are self-evident. Because how would I know that you aren't aware, for instance, that orientation and gender and sexuality are all natural human conditions, not "dirty" in and of themselves?
You can always ask, "Dan, I don't know that this IS self-evident... do you have any support for it?" and I can provide support, as I've said. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you recognize self-evident claims for what they are AND that you are capable of asking in cases where you don't think something is self-evident.
You are now an empowered adult. Go, and multiply.
Craig...
"Are you suggesting that there are no reports?"
I consider the word "reports" to be weightier than mere partisan gossip.
I don't view gossip as reliable or a legitimate "report."
If a Klansman says, "We keep hearing reports about how the N-words are dumb as a rock," I don't treat that as a credible report. Why would I?
Craig...
"That those reports are false?"
I view them for what they are: Unsupported claims that sound more gossipy than factual. I'm not saying they're false. I'm saying they're unsupported. A claim, by itself, is not a proven reality. It's just a claim. A claim from a partisan, unsupported by anything beyond the claimant's word, is not a proven reality and it's from a questionable source.
Understand?
Craig...
"How could you possibly judge something to be false with absolutely zero criteria to make that judgement?"
I haven't judged it false. I've noted the reality that it is unsupported and it is from a partisan source, hostile to the people they're accusing.
The criteria is that the accusers offered no written support for their claims, no words from the accused that support their claims and no other witnesses. The criteria is that the accusers are hostile witnesses, partisan and in opposition to LGBTQ matters.
How is that not factual and reasonable?
Craig... "you missed two links to news stories about school officials who are doing exactly what you call "gossip"."
"News" stories. Cute.
I said...
""Orientation is innate. It may be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual or some variation of these, but it is innate and natural."
You responded...
"That's quite a claim, can you prove it to 100% certainty?"
We see with 100% certainty that observably 100% of the people are either self-reporting being homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual or somewhere else on the spectrum of orientation.
100% of people.
I am aware of NO deviations from that. Are you?
If you are, by all means, cite the source and support the claim.
It's like with unicorns: I can report with 100% certainty that no one has ever proven unicorns exist with hard proof to support a claim that they do. No one has ever found a unicorn, photographed it, videotaped it, found the remains of a unicorn... and shared it. Not one time in all of history.
IF someone wants to claim that unicorns exist or that orientation (that we all experience somewhere on the spectrum) DOESN'T exist, the onus is on them to support the outlier claim.
Agreed?
Craig...
"What specific part of the brain governs this immutable, unchangeable, "orientation"?
I don't know. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can see that it exists in YOUR testimony that you have always been heterosexual with no inclination towards homosexuality and every other person having some place on the orientation spectrum. We can see it in all of humanity, even if we don't yet have a way of identifying where it comes from.
What specific hard data supports the existence of God as an objective reality, authoritatively and objectively provable? None. Doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
Right?
Craig... "Are you so stupid or blinded by hubris to miss the reality that "it didn't happen in the real world" is a claim?"
I think I've answered this but in case you didn't understand the answer, let me try one more time.
IF someone is making an unsupported outlier claim (like "Joe Biden is an alien from the Nebulus dimension and he and the Hollywood elite are eating children to lengthen their lives with their blood," for instance, or "Trump really WON the election!" or "I have a unicorn in my back yard and they are part of a noble race of NOT mythical creatures who have a Yeti King" or "Schools are deliberately and secretly hiding information about their children's gender from their parents in an effort to recruit more transgender children to the cause..."), these are all outlier and irrational slanderous claims contrary to common sense and with NO data to support such claims. None.
People don't have to respond to such myths by saying, "Look, I've cited all the known news in all of history and NO WHERE is there support for that unicorn claim or the teacher claim..." The outliers making the unsupported claims have the onus to provide proof for their irrational, slanderous claim, not the other way around.
You know this, right?
To point to the logic fallacy point here, you're asking me to prove a negative. YOU are the one making the claim that something exists. I'M responding it doesn't and that's because there is no evidence of it.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence
Craig...
"If "solidly homosexual" doesn't mean "100%" homosexual, and that someone who is "solidly homosexual" is "born unable to change that". then please explain the minute semantic nuances you are dredging up. "
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
A. There is no method that I'm aware of to calculate a percentage that someone is gay, straight or otherwise.
B. Nonetheless, there are some straight people like me and you, I suspect, that are not in any way attracted sexually to men. There are some gay people who are not in any way attracted sexually to the opposite gender.
Do you have ANY reason in the world to doubt the veracity of that observable reality?
C. There is no way that I'm aware of that someone could do something to cause me to be sexually attracted to men. There is nothing I could do that I'm aware of to make myself sexually attracted to men.
There is no known way that I am aware of to change someone's orientation if they are "solidly" gay or straight.
Are you aware of some way to cause people who are solidly gay or straight to change their orientation?
And yes, I'm well aware that there are people who report changing their orientation because of the guilt of their religion and the fear of their god who, according to their religion, will burn them in hell forever for being gay. And maybe they did. Maybe they were "solidly" gay and through "conversion therapy," but I think the evidence lands more solidly on the conclusion that CT is more harmful and dubious as to whether it genuinely changes orientation.
From some experts talking about research on the topic:
"There is no robust evidence to support claims that conversion therapy is effective at changing sexual orientation or gender identity.
Some of the largest studies report little to no reported change in sexual orientation, and reports of success are unpersuasive due to serious methodological limitations and sometimes major flaws in study designs...
There is an increasing amount of quantitative evidence that exposure to conversion therapy is statistically associated with poor mental health outcomes including suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts."
I can cite more experts.
So... with those clarifications, what's your point?
I Googled "teachers tell kids not to tell their parents". I found three separate stories of stdents being told by their teachers not to relate to their parents what was occurring in school with regard to sexual matters. I spent less than 60 seconds. Are we to believe "progressives" are incapable of such an obvious course of action? Or maybe "progressives" just find it easier to lie believing we're incapable of finding proof of that which has been well publicized in honest news sources?
Ahhhh, the "I dismiss the sources because of some bias I have, rather than whether or not the individual story is True" canard. Once again, Dan's hunches, biases, prejudices, and the like are the arbiter of what will be "accepted" rather than the actual Truth of the stories being reported.
"I just won't bother with claims that are self-evident."
Because you'll just label things as "self-evident" and use that as an excuse not to prove your claims, it's an old tactic.
More excuses to prejudge things based on your biases, prejudices, and the like. Nothing new, nothing worth dealing with.
Yes, news stories.
Excellent job of trying to cast my question as a claim (or my observation based on lived experience as a claim) while dodging the reality that you can't prove the claim you made. Again, I've produced evidence of (and have more) actions that contradict your claim, all I need is one to prove your claim false.
It's very simple. I'm asking you to define your terms. You used the term "solid", I'm asking you for a clear, concise, direct definition of what you mean by a "solid homosexual".
Craig...
"It's very simple. I'm asking you to define your terms. You used the term "solid", I'm asking you for a clear, concise, direct definition of what you mean by a "solid homosexual".
It IS really simple, which is why I already answered. And I quote...
"You know this, right? Some people are solidly heterosexual ("solidly" meaning they identify only as heterosexual and have no desire at all to find the same gender as an option for a sexual partner) and some are solidly homosexual."
Craig...
"you'll just label things as "self-evident" and use that as an excuse not to prove your claims..."
Of course, that is not what is happening. When I'm talking about things that are self evident, I am talking about things that are clearly self evident.
People DO have natural orientations in regards to their sexual attraction. You are naturally oriented as a heterosexual. I am naturally oriented as a heterosexual. Other people are naturally oriented as a homosexual. This is self evident. We can observe this in the real world... there is no mystery here.
Do you doubt this? Do you doubt it in your own self? Do you think that, just maybe, you might be attracted to men?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just trying to get some clarification. This seems abundantly self evident with proof in all of humanity, Including your own self. But do you disagree?
https://phl17.com/phl17-news/old-dominion-professor-who-tried-to-defend-and-normalize-maps-has-been-put-on-leave/
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:901fdea1-641e-3e60-b7d9-e86eec524385#pageNum=1
Louden County Schools training documents that allow teachers to not include parents in discussions about their children's sexuality.
New Hanover County Schools also hides information from parents, as does School of the Future NYC.
Dan, would you encourage your 9 year old to watch porn? This video, shown to elementary school students in NJ (among other places) encourages them to do so. Given the reality that porn is exploitative, harmful, and objectifies women, is the any circumstance where a school should be encouraging it's students to watch porn? Isn't porn "illegal" for people under 18?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1513603622461870083
Is this what young children should be taught?
"If your parents don't accept you for who you are, f*** them. I'm your parents now.
OK Middle school teacher. Tyler Wrynn
Do you really agree with this?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354019471_School_Employee_Sexual_Misconduct_Red_Flag_Grooming_Behaviors_by_Perpetrators
"The sexual exploitation of students is a worldwide problem. In the U.S., the problem is three-fold: (1) Ten percent of public school students report being sexually abused by a school employee. (2) There is little in the existing research that identifies and describes the school culture, patterns, and conditions in which educator sexual misconduct occurs. (3) Because no one has systematically docu-mented the school culture and the behaviors and patterns of adults who sexually abuse children in schools, school professionals fail to understand what patterns and behaviors should trigger concern, supervision, investigation, and/or reporting. Stopping sexual misconduct directed toward students means understanding the process that adults use to prepare students to be abused so that they do not tell, do not fight, and acquiesce. This process, called grooming, has the purpose of gaining student trust, as well as the trust of parents and colleagues. This study examines school employee sexual misconduct toward students in school in the United States and is based upon an analysis of 222 cases of school employee sexual misconduct toward a student where a school employee was convicted of student sexual abuse. The findings identify red flag grooming patterns used with students, colleagues, and parents."
Given the increasing numbers of sexual abuse incidents in schools over recent history, are schools really the best places to teach children about sex?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/10/15/sexual-assault-k-12-schools/
https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/secret-sexual-assault-schools (because encouraging young children to watch porn is definitely going to reduce this kind of behavior)
https://stopsexualassaultinschools.org/sexual-assault-k-12-in-the-media/
https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/teacher-abuse/
https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/teacher-abuse/
Just because we're seeing extensive evidence of schools hiding sexual abuse, doesn't mean that we shouldn't trust schools to hide facts about the sexuality of young children from their parents. What could possibly go wrong when schools encourage young children to hide things from their parents?
There's more, but given Dan's claim that these things "never happen", only one instance is needed to demonstrate that his claim is bullshit designed to support a narrative.
"You know this, right? Some people are solidly heterosexual ("solidly" meaning they identify only as heterosexual and have no desire at all to find the same gender as an option for a sexual partner) and some are solidly homosexual."
In other words 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. I'm sorry that you had such a hard time acknowledging this.
"I am talking about things that are clearly self evident."
Are you suggesting that some things are 100%, objectively, "self-evident" among all peoples/at all times/in all circumstances? That "self-evident" is a universally agreed on set of facts?
"Do you doubt this?"
Do I doubt that this "orientation" 100% immutable and absolutely never, ever changes. Yes.
"Do you doubt it in your own self?" Do you think that, just maybe, you might be attracted to men?"
I've already answered these idiotic questions. Yet I see (and know) a number of people who have switched from being heterosexual to being homosexual, and vice versa.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just trying to get some clarification. This seems abundantly self evident with proof in all of humanity, Including your own self. But do you disagree?"
Just because something seems self-evident to you (because self-evident literally finds it's value in the individual self, not in anything objective), doesn't mean that your claim is True, or factual.
Which brings us back to the point. You are insistent that sexual orientation (even assuming that there are multiple possible orientations) is a fixed, "solid", "immutable" characteristic even though it is totally divorced from any biological/physical "cause". Yet you simultaneously argue that "gender" (which is also-by your logic-divorced from the biological/physical) is fluid and is NOT "immutable", or "solid", or fixed. Yet you can't explain why these two non physical/biological things are treated in opposite manners? There is no objective reason to conclude that "orientation" is "solid"/"immutable", while gender is fluid.
Even if you could make a rational argument to solve the seeming contradiction, you still haven't addressed the age of consent issue, age of maturity issue.
Your first link about one teacher has nothing to do with the topic. Not sure why you shared that.
Craig...
"Do you doubt this?"
Do I doubt that this "orientation" 100% immutable and absolutely never, ever changes. Yes.
Not the question I asked. Care to answer the questions that are actually being asked?
What the hell is wrong with modern conservatives that they are so intellectually cowardly and unable or unwilling to hold adult-level, rational, respectful conversations in which they simply answer questions that are being asked instead of dodging and hiding with non-answers?
Craig... "Louden County Schools training documents that allow teachers to not include parents in discussions about their children's sexuality."
You're moving the goal posts. That's not about giving instructions to a whole class to "keep what we're talking about in this classroom from your parents."
If an individual child privately discloses something non-harmful like their orientation or gender to a teacher or other adult at school, that is the student's private information and it would be breaking confidentiality to disclose that to anyone, including parents, without the student's permission.
Are you suggesting you think it's okay to break confidentiality on personal matters, so long as no one is at risk (ie, it's different if the student is talking about killing themselves or others)?
Do you know how serious it can be to "out" someone's gender or orientation - even to family (sometimes especially to family!) without that student's permission?
Do you know that children are kicked out of their homes, "divorced" from their families and churches, sometimes forced into "treatment" "programs" to try to force a change or are otherwise pressured oppressively?
Do you want a teacher to tell a parent who will beat their child if they find out he's gay?
And even if that student only fears harmful repercussions but none were to come, do you know how debilitating and invasive it is to out someone against their will?
You can't be serious, if so.
OF course, teachers have some confidentialities they need to keep. Legally.
I would oppose any effort seeking to force LGBT people to become normal. While kids should be guided away from such abject nonsense for their own good, no force to alter their false self-perception should be employed, as that can compound their issues.
Adults, being adults, are free to believe about themselves whatever dumbass sexual perversion floats their immoral boat, so long as kids aren't involved with them in any way and no rational adult is required to enable and accommodate their delusion. These things are simply appropriate and just.
But to pretend these unfortunates cannot experience a paradigm shift is to reject scientific fact about the adaptive capacity of the brain, which played a role in the development of LGBT delusions those like Dan pretend are hardwired.
Among the most pernicious deceits of activists and enablers is in questioning normal people about their orientation, as we see in Dan's questioning of Craig's. Even "straight" "progressives" cannot fully dispute we are each designed for uniting with the opposite sex, and for themselves will insist they can't imagine anything else. But it's still a matter of choice. Normal, rational people of character simply abide moral truths and choose to continue doing so despite whatever pressures or influences exist in the world.
There's a saying about killing getting easier after the first time. It refers to a paradigm shift in the mind of those who've never taken a life and then, for whatever reason, do. Whatever on thinks about one's self can change for any number of reasons and thus each of us has the capacity to change what lefties insist is "hardwired". Bad habits can be rejected. Good habits can be developed. Immoral beliefs can be rejected and morality embraced. LGBT people can cast off their immorality and heal their disorder.
"Not the question I asked. Care to answer the questions that are actually being asked?"
Why should I, you don't on a regular basis? The problem might be that the question is so vague that "this" could literally mean anything you've said in any comment. Try being more specific.
"You're moving the goal posts. That's not about giving instructions to a whole class to "keep what we're talking about in this classroom from your parents.""
No, it's literally not. Please show me specifically where I limited this to "giving instructions to the whole class?". The problem is that your "NO ONE" is doing this is overtaken by the reality that schools ARE hiding these things from parents as a matter of official policy. You've been very insistent that the parents should be the only ones involved in these decisions, I'm not sure how you can support the state preventing the parents from making the decisions you claim they should be making. But nice try at dodging reality.
"If an individual child privately discloses something non-harmful like their orientation or gender to a teacher or other adult at school, that is the student's private information and it would be breaking confidentiality to disclose that to anyone, including parents, without the student's permission."
Interesting. How then are the parents to be involved in the decision, when the state is hiding the information from the parents? Who is better equipped to know and guide children, parents or agents of the state? Who decides what should be hidden from the parents? You, the state? What if the confidential information that the child shared was that they were using heroin? Or that (as is increasingly common) they were being sexually abused in school? What an asinine position to take. That agents of the state are better equipped to make decisions for minor children that their parents?
"Are you suggesting you think it's okay to break confidentiality on personal matters, so long as no one is at risk (ie, it's different if the student is talking about killing themselves or others)?"
I'm suggesting that either the state does not supplant the parents in the matter of their children.
"Do you know how serious it can be to "out" someone's gender or orientation - even to family (sometimes especially to family!) without that student's permission?"
Yes I do. The problem is that you can't argue that the parents are the only ones who should be involved in these decisions, and that the information that the parent needs to make these sorts of decisions should be hidden from them. It's contradictory.
"Do you know that children are kicked out of their homes, "divorced" from their families and churches, sometimes forced into "treatment" "programs" to try to force a change or are otherwise pressured oppressively?"
Yes, but if (as you keep arguing) the parents are the ones who have the responsibility to make these decisions, then how can you justify hiding things from them on a suspicion of what they MIGHT do? Just because parents might make decisions that you don;t like, doesn't mean that they don't have the responsibility for decisions concerning their minor children.
"Do you want a teacher to tell a parent who will beat their child if they find out he's gay?"
How can you or an agent of the state be 100% confident about how a parent will react? How will hiding things from the parent make things better? How can you be 100% certain that the agent of the state is 100% honest and accurate, while assuming the worst about the parent? Shouldn't parents have some degree of presumption that they have their children's best interest at heart, absent any evidence to the contrary?
"And even if that student only fears harmful repercussions but none were to come, do you know how debilitating and invasive it is to out someone against their will?"
Because 3-4 year olds are mature and rational enough to make these kinds of decisions. Of course, that "fear" of disappointing one's parents comes with a lot of things minor children do.
Your problem is assuming that a pre pubescent minor child has the capacity to make these sorts of major decisions, and assuming that the agents of the state are are better equipped to guide children that the children's parents?
In general, is it better to make irreversible decisions based on only listening to people who agree with you, or to seek the counsel of people who love you enough to push back?
"Can you agree that such decisions should be left to the family and the individual, along with their experts?"
Can you agree that "the family" would be ill equipped to make "such decisions" if agents of the state were intentionally hiding information from them?
It's impossible for Dan to hold a consistent position on this issue as Craig has skillfully proven.
Much of Dan's defense of disorder depends upon this notion of "oppression", as of there is no greater abuse a person can suffer than the alleged abuses suffered by the disordered LGBT. Here, Dan worries about kids being beaten or rejected by charicatured Christian fanatic parents. (I'm still waiting for the parents' version of these unproven horror stories to be presented by leftist appeasers and enablers. So far, bupkis.) If such parents exist, it's vastly unlikely it's only this revelation which would set them off. And what are the odds a good portion of such kids lamenting the dangers at home are simply lying like a Trabue? Pretty good, I'd wager.
But even in those rare cases where parents are so "demonic", there's no scenario where the best option is to enable the kids' delusion. Actual adults are supposed to embrace right from wrong where kids are concerned, and that doesn't include pretending the kids' delusions aren't the lies they are.
On a side note, Dan is keen to presume opposition to the agenda can only be explained by religious extremism. It's ironic Dan pretends there's any Biblical support for enabling these lost souls and he is quick to insist his position nonetheless aligns with God's will, without having the least bit of Scriptural evidence.
Does he ever have evidence anything? Will we ever see it?
Craig, let's suppose you're a teacher and you have a student who has disclosed to you that they think they are gay and they can't tell their parents because they fear their dad would abuse them.
Are you telling me that you think that teacher's are "obliged" to pass that information on to the parents? Are you telling me that you would?
Dan, let's suppose that someone has claimed that such decisions "should be left to the family and the individual,", how would that someone defend hiding information from those who "should" make "such decisions"?
Are you telling me that it's impossible that this hypothetical "kid" wouldn't lie or exaggerate their parents reaction? Are you telling me that the parents should be assumed to be "guilty" on the basis of one "witness"? Especially since the "witness" is a party to the potential disagreement? Are you telling me that your blanket claim that "such decisions should be left to the family and the individual," excluded the parents in certain cases? Are you telling me that the teacher is "obliged" to accept the the kid's claim without investigating?
Yes, with caution and due diligence. Yes, with caution and due diligence.
Are you telling me that you support teachers ignoring the authority of parents?
"how would that someone defend hiding information from those who "should" make "such decisions"?"
?
Are you kidding? Professionals have a responsibility not to pass on information to people when it would cause harm to their clients, in this case, students.
So again, are you saying you WOULD out this student even if they said it would likely cause them harm?
Yes . Individuals and their families and their experts should be the ones to make such decisions.
HOWEVER, there is an obvious ( to those who are not brain dead or immoral) caveat that the parents should NOT be involved if they're actively causing harm to the student. Because, of course not.
We're not idiots. Are you an idiot?
"Are you telling me that you support teachers ignoring the authority of parents?"
YES. IF - and this is vital - the parents are likely to cause harm to the student by beating, mocking, or otherwise harming the student, OF COURSE teachers and any moral rational people should absolutely not "respect " the parent's "authority" to harm their children.
Do you disagree?
"Are you telling me that it's impossible that this hypothetical "kid" wouldn't lie or exaggerate their parents reaction?"
Nope.
You telling me it's impossible this kid would not be correct?
"Are you telling me that the parents should be assumed to be "guilty" on the basis of one "witness"? "
Nope.
I'm not saying such parents should be put in prison or killed or burned for an eternity or anything like that period I'm sad I'm saying that responsible professional adults call professional adults in settings like mental health and education have a responsibility to do no harm and to respect the privacy of their clients.
It sounds like a good thing that you're not an educator or in a position to care for children.
"Are you kidding?"
No. You're the one who's been insisting that "parents" are the ones who "should" make "such decisions". If you believe that, then please explain how the "parents" can "make" "such decisions" in a fully informed manner if agents of the state are intentionally withholding information from the parents? It's your contradiction to explain, not mine.
"So again, are you saying you WOULD out this student even if they said it would likely cause them harm?"
Already answered.
"We're not idiots. Are you an idiot?"
Really, and no.
"HOWEVER, there is an obvious ( to those who are not brain dead or immoral) caveat that the parents should NOT be involved if they're actively causing harm to the student. Because, of course not."
1. Therefore, when you made your earlier blanket statement about parents being the ones who should make "such decisions", you really hadn't thought of the exceptions to your blanket statement, and now would like to amend your original statement.
2. If parents are "actively causing harm to the student", why would any agent of the state NOT have reported this active, present, ongoing, harm to the student, but instead choose to leave the student in a situation where they are being actively harmed, and simply hide information from the parents? It seems like any agent of the state would be irresponsible if they hadn't reported active, current, harm being done to a student.
3. Under what other circumstances should agents of the state hide pertinent information about children from their parents?
"the parents are likely to cause harm to the student by beating, mocking, or otherwise harming the student,"
Interesting, all you need to decide that the parental authority should be ignored is a suspicion that "beating, mocking, or otherwise harming" might possibly happen? How does one prove that "beating, mocking, or otherwise harming" might happen? Are the parents presumed guilty? Are the parents given the opportunity to defend themselves against these accusations? Does one singular agent of the state get to make these decisions about what might happen unilaterally?
"Do you disagree?"
I disagree that any individual agent of the state should undermine the parental authority based on unproven hunches about something that might happen at some point in the future. I also would disagree that any instance of undermining parental authority by an agent of the state without due process is hugely problematic.
"It sounds like a good thing that you're not an educator or in a position to care for children."
Yes, because heaven forbid that "educators" respect the role of the parents, and actually focus on educating our kids with the skills necessary to function as an adult. As I look at the abject failures in so many of our public schools, along with the increasing numbers of sexual assaults being covered up by schools, I guess I'm wondering why aren't we focusing on the fundamentals of education before worrying about encouraging prepubescent children to watch porn, and transvestite story hour and the like.
How about we stop all this other stuff until 90% of all students across the country can all perform at or above grade level in core subjects?
Dan,
Your right, you wouldn't like me as a teacher, because I wouldn't talk to prepubescent children about sex.
Too bad the students I tutor would disagree with your biased, assumptions. They don't have the same prejudices you do, I guess.
Some data...
1% of children are abused in a given year and 12% experience abuse or mistreatment over their childhood.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/06/02/318227196/odds-of-abuse-and-mistreatment-add-up-over-childrens-lives
LGBTQ children experience greater chance of maltreatment by families... more like 40% (this can be difficult to measure).
50-70% LGBTQ youth rejected by family (and by contrast, straight kids coming out as straight and cisgendered... zero %.)
https://lesley.edu/article/the-cost-of-coming-out-lgbt-youth-homelessness
OK. Looking at the data. 1 in 100 children might suffer abuse in a given year. On any given school team, then (depending on size of school) teachers can expect that that 1 to 5 of their students might be abused that year. Every year.
With me so far?
That's with all children. In any given year, teachers know that there's a good chance at least one of their students is being maltreated. However, when we start looking at gay children and youth, the likelihood of abuse skyrockets to to 30, 40, 60%. The likelihood of a student being outright rejected - to at least some degree - by at least one of their parents is pretty high.
Now to address your problem or concern that sometimes students lie or exaggerate about how badly they might be treated, that is of course true. I've worked with youth most of my life, including in the school setting. They sometimes exaggerate how things are at home. That's a reality.
And yet, it is also reality that with LGBTQ youth, there is a good chance, I'd say at least 50-50, that they will be maltreated by their family when they come out.
First of all, are you not aware of this? Have you not heard the endless number of stories of abuse and rejection from our beloved LGBTQ friends?
Secondly, do you then understand why, looking at the data, teachers have to take reports from LGBTQ students that they might have some harm at home if they are outed?
Craig...
"would you encourage your 9 year old to watch porn? This video, shown to elementary school students in NJ (among other places) encourages them to do so. Given the reality that porn is exploitative, harmful, and objectifies women, is the any circumstance where a school should be encouraging it's students to watch porn? Isn't porn "illegal" for people under 18?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1513603622461870083"
That video is of an unidentified person who says if your parents don't accept you as you are, "f*** 'em..." I don't know who the video was shown to. If it was shown to elementary school kids, it's probably inappropriate because of the expletive, but the sentiment is perfect and loving. IF your parents are rejecting you, beating you, cursing at you, insisting you change because you are LGBTQ, to hell with that sort of "parent."
We don't have room for abusive parents in our world. That sort of rejection IS literally abusive and emotionally damaging.
And yet again, still, as if it's required to enhance the listeners' probability of allying themselves with the "historically" oppressed, Dan does absolutely nothing...likely intentionally so...of providing a single example of a parent's side of the story.
And likely because his devotion to the LGBT cause blinds him to simple truths, speaking of percentages going up if the focus is on LGBT kids is a fraud. There are fewer of those kids, representing a tiny percentage of the whole, and thus it appears things are worse for them than normal kids. So, what would be the percentage of, say, bullied fat kids compared to all kids? It's a safe wager the percentage would be higher as well. There's only three conclusions any honest person can draw: Dan's either a moron or a liar or a combo of the two. I'm going with the combo option.
Post a Comment