When is it OK for boys to be girls, and girls to be boys?

[oberliner]

Park Day School is throwing out gender boundaries.

Teachers at the private Oakland elementary school have stopped asking the children to line up according to sex when walking to and from class. They now let boys play girls and girls play boys in skits. And there's a unisex bathroom.

Admissions director Flo Hodes is even a little apologetic that she still balances classes by gender.

Park Day's gender-neutral metamorphosis happened over the past few years, as applications trickled in for kindergartners who didn't fit on either side of the gender line. One girl enrolled as a boy, and there were other children who didn't dress or act in gender-typical ways. Last year the school hired a consultant to help the staff accommodate these new students.

"We had to ask ourselves, what is gender for young children?" Hodes said. "It's coming up more and more."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/27/MNGL2KQ8H41.DTL&feed=rss.news

[Lasher]

1. When it's a Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world.

Which is pretty much how it is today. But discussions of sexual preferences, or for that matter discussions of sex, should not be a part of kindergarten curriculum. Preferences aside, they know that boys and girls are different, kind of like cats and dogs are different. But they don't know or care about how people interact sexually. It's best to wait until they get older before we start discussing such things with them.

If one of them behaves differently, that's a good opportunity to let everyone know that's OK.

[JackBeck]

5. "Preferences"?

That's an odd word choice.

[Lasher]

33. You might be right but it's a common one.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

163. And it also doesn't mean it's wrong to use.

Don't like the term, "sexual preference", but offer no good reason to justify your objection to its use. You seem to expect me to concede that my choice of words is wrong, just because you say this is so. Calling me names is not going to get me to comply with your personal list of euphemisms du jour.

[Zhade]

298. It's an orietation, not a preference. We don't choose.

Period.

Do gay animals choose? Nope. And we're just more advanced animals, anyway.

Your bigotry is exposed.

[foreigncorrespondent]

97. So you would...

...prefer to sleep with a woman over a man rather than actually LIKING women over men?

For me, I like women. It isn't a case of actually preferring to sleep with women, because that would signal an enjoyment for men, which isn't the case!

So it might be common, but in regards to sex, they aren't a preference!

[Lasher]

164. Uh, did I say that?

I've never slept with a woman over a man, so I don't know if I like that or not. When there's a couple next to me the man is always on top.

You're getting so hung up on semantics (and you're not alone in this), it's hard to be sure just what you're saying. You like women, but do you prefer (am I supposed to say 'like' here) to have sex with a woman or with a man? Or do you have no preference? Or maybe you don't like sex. Or you don't like preferences.

Come on, isn't this just a little bit silly?

[bicentennial_baby]

172. Bwahahaha!

"When there's a couple next to me the man is always on top."

:rofl: Well then, I'd say your sexual experience is severely limited! :rofl:

You haven't lived, sorry....There's a whole other world outside of your weird sphere of existence...

[Lasher]

175. I don't get out much, no need to rub it in.

But I'm willing to learn. :)

[bicentennial_baby]

179. That's not rubbing it in, that's

pointing out your ignorance of the world at large...No sympathy from me here, sorry :shrug:

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

277. Not Everything... Just ... Something about Sex

and you are commenting on other's sexuality.

[Jamastiene]

260. Wow, it sounds like a time warp, doesn't it?

When was the last time a man was ALWAYS on top? I mean, come on, seriously.

What you said: :rofl: Best thing I have heard all day. :thumbsup:

[foreigncorrespondent]

187. I am hung up on semantics?

Please you insult me.

I am telling you saying our sexuality is a preference is a right wing trigger for saying that homosexuality is a choice rather than a natural way of life. What part of that do you not understand? You won't get any support from me, so long as you wish to continue with the right wing crap rather than facts.

As for whether or not I like sex, that is none of your business. As for preferences, yes I prefer a nice t-bone steak over rump steak. But when it comes to my sexuality, that isn't a preference.

[Lasher]

215. OK then please consider this

I punched 'prefer' into a thesarus and came up with this:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=prefer&x=22&y=11

Please note, 'like better' is one of the synonyms you can see in the result.

You object to my use of the term, 'sexual preference' and interpret this to mean that I believe homosexuality is a choice. Then I will challenge you to consider the following "...right wing crap rather than facts."

Sexual orientation is the self-perception of one’s sexual preference and emotional attraction. Sexual orientation can be directed toward members of the same sex (homosexual), the opposite sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), or neither sex (asexual). Sexuality is experienced through the person’s gender identity (regardless of his or her biology).

http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=61&FileID=541

This definition comes to us from the folks at The International Lesbian and Gay Association. If you feel you have reacted properly to my use of the term, 'sexual preference', wouldn't it be appropriate to contact them and accuse them of all the same things I have been accused of in this thread? Don't forget to call them reich-wing homophobes.

If not, you might conclude that I was right about semantics.

[readmoreoften]

266. No offense, but are you a teenaged DUer?

You seem like you may be young and inexperienced in dealing with people and sexuality issues.

[NoSheep]

301. I just read through that and I can't imagine why you would ask such a

question. really. Someone just knee jerked to a term which I feel is quite common. I'm 43. Have slept with men and women...I say "sexual preference". A person must, at some point, move on into the knowledge that they are okay and it doesn't make a damn what anybody thinks about what they do. That is when adulthood will finally have meaning for a person. Believe me, I've lived it. Work for positive change, but lashing out with a chip on one's shoulder (ultimately detrimental to the person doing the lashing out) is a sure sign of an immature emotional makeup. And yes, I get it that having maturity regarding one's emotional makeup is difficult if one lives in a society that doesn't accept a person's identity. Does the word "identity" give you a problem? Could it be construed as having a meaning such as I chose to have this identity? At some point language does not come close to reflecting MOST of our realities. That is considered fairly standard knowledge among those who have given serious thought to such issues as these we discuss here.

Own yourself. And get on with your life. FUCK everybody else.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

303. The poster the question was presented to has said numerous things to

suggest his immaturity beyond his insistence upon using the term "sexual preference."

[NoSheep]

305. I read the posts and I disagree.

[Sapphocrat]

320. Well, if you came in this late...

...you've already missed a lot of deleted posts and subthreads.

[NoSheep]

340. Ah! That's a good point.

[Sapphocrat]

319. You're happy with "sexual orientation."

That's fine. Nobody's faulting you for it. I respect your choice of definition for yourself, and most of us here, I am certain, would never dream of telling you you must adopt anyone else's term, or definition of yourself. But that's half the point: No one gets to choose that for you.

And you're right: Fuck whoever doesn't like the way you live your life. The only "choice" any of us makes is whether or not act upon our natural disposition.

Anyway, do read the rest of this thread, if you don't succumb to a migraine by the 150th post or so. The "backlash" is not based on a single post.

I also find the question of the poster's age perfectly reasonable; I've found that rigid attitudes are usually the result of extreme youth, and/or limited social exposure. People generally mellow as they age, and while genuine conservatives may not evolve into liberals, the older we get, the more willing most of us are to at least accept the existence of ideas and values contrary to our own, whether we like them or not, or whether we can change them or not.

And before anybody calls me a hypocrite, I can accept the fact that a lot of people will never see things the way I do. What I cannot accept is the knowledge that some people will always refuse to even try to understand the other side.

[Lasher]

353. No offense taken here.

I'm not usually easily offended. But some people might take exception if you make generalized assumptions about them based on their age. I try to show respect for others regardless of their age.

[Sapphocrat]

279. That's like saying...

..."Well, if the International Astronomical Union says that Pluto is not a planet, then all astronomers must agree that Pluto is not a planet."

With all due respect to the ILGA, the ILGA is a vast, diverse network of LGBT groups, and not the ultimate authority on the definition of "sexual preference," or anything else for that matter. There is no monolithic group, no "world church" from which we take our cues -- and certainly no group which defines our orientation for us.

Plus, the article you cite was written by one person, and was in fact a presentation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 2005, by Deborah Lambillotte, an intersexed translesbian from Belgium -- who, while more than deserving of admiration and respect for her work on behalf of LGBT people worldwide, hardly represents every gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer, and questioning person on the planet.

In fact, many of us object to the word "preference" at all, as it connotates having a choice in the matter of who one loves. A more accurate term is "affectational orientation," which places, more properly, emphasis on the emotional as opposed to the sexual. It does not diminish the status of sexuality in anyone's makeup, but highlights the very real truth that we are not defined merely by the function of our genitals.

And, frankly, as a lifelong lesbian whose affectational orientation runs 100% toward other women, I would nevertheless prefer to have sex with Johnny Depp than I would Ann Coulter -- which should give you further food for thought regarding strict definitions of "preference."

Upthread, you replied to a poster, "Don't like the term, 'sexual preference', but offer no good reason to justify your objection to its use."

Well, now you know of just one "good reason" to dislike the term "sexual preference."

Bear in mind it is my reason, and I don't claim to speak for the worldwide LGBT community -- any more than the ILGA speaks for me.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

280. You just said it wonderfully.

:thumbsup:

[Lasher]

337. Let me communicate my point more clearly

I don't expect you to endorse the use of the term, 'sexual preference' just because the ILGA uses it. I understand that they don't speak for everyone, and neither does as neither you nor I do. What I do expect is not to be condemned if I use it, since this respected pro-gay organization also does.

My point is, why is it wrong of me to use the phrase, but not wrong of them to use it? More than that, how can anyone expect me to have even known that anyone might find the use of the phrase objectionable, when I have seen it used by this organization? Why are some offended when I use the phrase but not offended when the ILGA uses it?

If I am a homophobe, as I have been called by someone else in this message string (you'll just have to trust me on that, the message has been removed by the moderators), doesn't that make them homophobes too? If it is a "...Reich Wing word of choice for gay..." when I use it, is it different when they use it? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1992780#1994054

If you are also offended when the ILGA uses the phrase, do you think you and others here should share with them the same sentiments that have been conveyed to me here?

This is why I assert that the 'offense' conveyed here is highly unjustified, and I believe I have proved it with this appeal to the principle of similar circumstances. If you want to be fair, I believe it is incumbent on you to either show how the circumstances are different or agree that my assertion is correct. Similar circumstances should be treated in a similar manner.

On reflection, I wish I would have said that the hostility that has been directed toward me, and not the offense, is unjustified; since you have a right to feel any way you want.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain why you believe the phrase should not be used. I have come to understand this belief in the last couple of days. And thank you for this coherent and reasonable response, which is something that has been quite rare in this message thread, IMO.

[Jamastiene]

293. I cannot recall the last time ILGA was in my life at all

or did one single thing for me. Many gay people will tell you exactly the same thing, which is, "What have they done for me lately?" ILGA is of no consequence in our daily lives as we muddle through daily insults, harrassment, slurs based on second or third hand ignorance, a government (and apparently some other DU'ers, amazingly) who do not believe we should have simple basic human rights or even a right to our own opinions.

You need to realize that one group does not define all GLBT people and that many of us have nothing to do with gay organizations because they are not available and therefore not at all helpful in our area. I have heard of this group you are referring to before, but I seem to recall that the news was bad. If I can find it when I get time, I might post a link. Otherwise, why bother to back up anything I say in this thread? No one on your side of the aisle seems to be willing to bother posting links, so why should I? I can't think of one good reason to bother at this point. You are obviously only interested in taking second, third, and even archaic usages of a words you use to justify your obvious total disregard for the humanity of GLBT people. It's a sad thing that you will not simply stop and listen to us for one second.

[Sapphocrat]

321. Hay-ell, for that matter...

...what has the HRC done for us lately?

Honestly, I can't think of a single LGBT organization that's done much good for anyone lately, except maybe GLAAD, sometimes, and Immigration Equality (tho' there isn't a lot IE can do at this point).

But that's a whole 'nother issue.

Good post, J. :thumbsup:

[Lasher]

347. I am not saying ILGA speaks for you

And I do post links, and I think more people should.

What I am saying about the ILGA is, why do you react one way when I use a phrase, and then have a different or no reaction when the ILGA uses the exact same phrase? And how could you expect me to know it would be offensive to anyone when the ILGA uses it today? The term has been widely used for a long time. I would have been OK with a polite, "Would you please consider using a different phrase because I find this one offensive and here is why." But that's sure not what I got.

Except for my post #1 I used the term, 'sexual preference' only in legitimate reference during out discussion. You are not correct to infer that I have used it, either initially or in any subsequent case, with an intention of hurting anyone else.

Nobody has convinced me that I did anything wrong in post #1. You might think I'm not listening just because I won't say that I did something wrong when I did not. After all this time I have spent in honest effors to justify my position, you accuse me of having an "... obvious total disregard for the humanity of GLBT people." Maybe it is you who is not listening.

[Jamastiene]

257. I wonder how many people of the same sex that person

slept with before deciding that they preferred the opposite sex. Considering they want to tell us what our sexuality is because we disagree with their bigoted comments, I wonder what it was about the same sex they didn't like. I mean if they tried hard enough, maybe they could be gay. Just replacing words normally used against us and holding up a mirror up to their bigoted comments will get this post deleted, I'll bet, but turnabout should be fair play.

[Jamastiene]

258. Also, torturing women with thumbscrews was common years ago

if she dared to turn a man in for raping her in hopes that she would retract her allegations. That didn't mean it was right and it didn't mean there was no bigotry against women involved in that practice.

You explained that especially well in the face of this willful bigotry that has been posted in a lot of anti-gay diatribes in this thread.

[Sapphocrat]

96. Never mind "preferences".

What I want to know is why anyone would assume casting off gender roles is the result of a "mixed up muddled up shook up world."

That's what offends me.

[JackBeck]

98. True.

The bells and whistles went off, though, when the Reich Wing word of choice for gay came out to play.

[CrushTheDLC]

135. Perhaps he was quoting Ray Davies?

Well that's the way that I want it to stay
And I always want it to be that way for my Lola
La-la-la-la Lola
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola
La-la-la-la Lola

Though he apparently missed the key word there, "except".

That and the fact that Lola wasn't in kindergarten

[Sapphocrat]

142. Sure...

...but in light of the poster's other remarks, I think he meant exactly what he wrote by that.

[Lasher]

166. I am offended by people who don't recognize the lyrics to Lola

The word 'except' is not 'the' key word any more than La-la-la-la is, in the context in which I used the line. You're working a little too hard to jump on the bandwagon of criticizing me. I believe you are correct to say that Lola wasn't in kindergarten, but that was not mentioned in the song, was it? It's hard to copy a phrase that isn't there.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

177. You need to learn what gender identity and sexual identity means.

Academically. Not what you seem to think it means, but what the academic community believes it to be.

"What's wrong with what the school is doing, insofar as I understand it, is to avoid grouping kindergarten kids into gender-specific groups, for the sole purpose of ensuring that heterosexual identities will not be encouraged."

No one at this school is trying to ensure that heterosexual identites will not be encouraged. All they are doing is ensuring that kids are free to express themselves as they feel fit without being forced into gender roles. Nothing is getting encouraged or discouraged. The mere idea that you think heterosexuality could be discouraged also seems to imply that you think there is a choice involved. A lot of the kids will engage in traditional gender specific behavior still and no one is discouraging that. This school is simply making it okay for the kids that blur the lines to blur the lines. Did you even read the article?

[Lasher]

182. Please read my messages before you reply to them.

I go to a lot of trouble to refute your wild accusations. The very least you can do is actually read what I have to say.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

185. I have read your messages before I replied to them.

I think very few people around here would consider my accusations wild. Oddly enough, I don't think you're fully reading my messages.

[Lasher]

192. There you go again, speaking on behalf of everyone.

Did somebody make you king?

OK, here is why I said you are not reading my messages. In response 176 I said:

What I said was, "What's wrong with what the school is doing, insofar as I understand it, is to avoid grouping kindergarten kids into gender-specific groups, for the sole purpose of ensuring that heterosexual identities will not be encouraged." If the purpose of the grouping methodology is not to preclude encouragement of heterosexual identities, then what is?

I did not say, as you falsely claim, that "...this school wants to ensure kids don't grow up into the heterosexual lifestyle." I percieved no active discouragement of any particular lifestyle. You are resorting to these questionable tactics because you want to hear nothing but approval of the kindergarten program and you are afraid to debate the issue fairly.

Get it? No active discouragement of any particular lifestyle. Do try to keep up.

Then in your response to that you said:

The mere idea that you think heterosexuality could be discouraged also seems to imply that you think there is a choice involved.

You didn't read my message, did you?

And yes, I read and understood every single word of the full article before I offered any contribution to this thread.

[NoSheep]

304. Just wanted to let you know, from what I can see, you are making perfect

sense. What we have here are some very wounded hearts and minds, as far as I can tell. Nothing you have posted would lead me to think any of these things that are being written here in response. Maybe it is best to have compassion at this point for those who are obviously less fortunate this hour.

[Lasher]

328. I am trying to be compassionate

It's hard to show much compassion, however, when defending myself against continuing unjustified personal attacks. It's interesting to see how 'being offended' can be used as an offensive weapon.

I am not going to say I'm wrong when I'm not, just to appease those who demand it of me. Here is my latest rebuttal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=2002428

Thank you for your supportive comments.

[Jamastiene]

259. I do not consider your accusations wild.

Actually, I see them as valid concerns for many of us in the GLBT community.

[Sapphocrat]

203. Oh, brother. n/t

[dionysus]

240. those are lyrics from the Kinks song Lola, btw

[Sapphocrat]

281. I'm aware of that.

That doesn't change the sentiment behind the words; the lyric itself says flat-out that it's a mixed-up, muddled, etc., world except for Lola, who, we can safely presume, is a "girl" who acts like a "girl."

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

283. Actually Lola is a "man" who acts like a "girl"

However, Lasher's comments were still offensive and homophobic.

<snip>
Well Im not dumb but I cant understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
<snip>
Well I left home just a week before
And Id never ever kissed a woman before
But lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said dear boy Im gonna make you a man

Well Im not the worlds most masculine man
But I know what I am and Im glad Im a man
And so is lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
Lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

[Sapphocrat]

285. Ah, thanks for clearing that up!

I've never paid any attention to the lyrics; I switch to another station the moment I hear it -- it's one of the very few pop tunes that grates on me as just this annoying, repetitive droning noise (which I then can't get out of my head to save my life!).

[kiahzero]

290. Lola's glad the singer's a man, from the sound of it.

"I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola" would seem to imply that the speaker is glad that he is a man, and Lola is also glad that the speaker is a man.

I could be completely wrong, but that's the way it reads to me intuitively.

[EOTE]

254. It's a line from the Kinks song "Lola"...

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for lola
Lo-lo-lo-lo lola

[Sapphocrat]

282. See post #281. n/t

[Jamastiene]

9. Boys and girls are not even the same species?

Wow, humans are some form of hybrid. I did not know that.

[Lasher]

34. I didn't even imply that and you know it.

You are beating a drum.

[Jamastiene]

52. I think cats and dogs are different species, if I am not mistaken.

You said, "Preferences aside, they know that boys and girls are different, kind of like cats and dogs are different." in post numero uno, for the record.

[Lasher]

167. No, I didn't

I cited a similar circumstance of their understanding. An identical condition of their being was neither cited nor even vaguely implied. You are one hundred percent wrong.

[Jamastiene]

255. I am 100% right, because I quoted exactly what you said.

You said it, not me. If I am wrong for quoting you then you are wrong too. Period.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

99. But you did imply that!

they know that boys and girls are different, kind of like cats and dogs are different

Simply by comparing boys and girls with cats and dogs. The latter of the two are actually different species!

[Lasher]

168. Did not.

[foreigncorrespondent]

181. I'm not going to play...

...schoolyard games with you. The statement you made in which you compare boys and girls to dogs and cats is right here for the world to see in both your post and where I quoted it in mine.

If you want to play games, I suggest you find someone else to take your bait.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jamastiene]

261. Wow, this is turning into exactly what I figured

it would turn into; a schoolyard childish game of did not/did to. Well, here ya go, DID TOO. I quoted you. You did too. :eyes:

[Lasher]

348. I had several questions that were the same.

I thought you would notice the reply I offered here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1995662

[bicentennial_baby]

173. Uh....

"they know that boys and girls are different, kind of like cats and dogs are different"

[Lasher]

180. Check out the 'night and day' analogy just below.

I cited a similar circumstance of their understanding. An identical condition of their being was neither cited nor even vaguely implied.

[cherokeeprogressive]

125. How would you have bashed him if he'd said...

Boys is to Girl as Night is to Day?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

133. There's a difference between "bashing" and "calling out." nt

[Jamastiene]

144. Days are at least in the same category somewhat, but

cats and dogs are different species entirely and that is precisely what I pointed out.

You obviously do not know what a real bashing (i.e. lesbians being raped simply for saying no to a man who won't quit harrassing her, being beaten severely, tied to a fence post and left to suffer for 5 days, being shot to death for merely being GLBT, etc.) is or you wouldn't have used that word to describe what I pointed out either.

[cherokeeprogressive]

158. It always amuses me when someone says

"You obviously do not know..." and then completes the sentence with their own view of what I do or do not know.

I've lived in 5 different major metropolitan areas, and am a news as well as political junkie. I guess I missed the story about the lesbian who was raped, beaten severely, tied to a fence post and left to suffer for five days, then was shot to death for being GLBT, because she said no to a man who was harrassing her. Damn that MSM.

I use the word bash any time someone beats someone else up verbally (semantics being what it is) because of something he or she says, just because it doesn't jibe with what the latter believes.

Lasher's point, as I saw it, was that there are differences between little boys and little girls. And that they shouldn't be forced to see the world as adults see it. I believe in my heart that he was saying "let kids be kids" and don't MAKE them adhere to adult rules. He used a word that makes you feel uncomfortable though, and you "bashed" him for it. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

My analogy, "Boy is to Girl as Night is to Day", is right on the mark. Both are manifestations of the same thing, occuring in the same star system.

Bash me for this: I knew a woman, when I was in the Navy, who told me (after I asked her out for the oh, the tenth time or so) that her "preference" was for other women. At the time I was so naive as to miss subtle messages that were as plain as the proverbial nose on your face. PREFERENCE was the word she used though, when she calmly, and with tact, told me "Thanks, but no thanks" and then explained to me where she was coming from. We became fast friends after that and to this day, if I had to rely on someone in a pinch, male OR female, I'd call HER. We're still in touch. She's still in the Navy, and has visited my home twice with her partner. (go ahead and bash me for the use of the word partner)

So maybe, just maybe, without knowing me, your snap assessment of me was wrong?

[Lasher]

170. That was exactly my point.

Since there is so much interest in the phrase, 'sexual preference', I googled it and here is something I came up with:

Sexual orientation is the self-perception of one’s sexual preference and emotional attraction. Sexual orientation can be directed toward members of the same sex (homosexual), the opposite sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), or neither sex (asexual). Sexuality is experienced through the person’s gender identity (regardless of his or her biology).

http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=61&FileID=541

This comes from those well known homophobes and nazis, the folks with The International Lesbian and Gay Association. There is no universally held belief that the use of the phrase, 'sexual preference' is inappropriate.

[readmoreoften]

271. Yeah, thanks for minimizing gay bashing throughour your post.

I'm sure you've missed a lot of rape and murders of lesbians... because you probably assume that every woman who is raped and murdered is heterosexual if the MSM doesn't specify otherwise. I don't care how many metropolitan areas you've lived in, and the fact that you even bother to point that out is obnoxious. Living in an urban area has nothing to do with understanding GLBT issues.

And just because you have ONE GAY FRIEND or one woman friend who PREFERS WOMEN (maybe she is bisexual) doesn't mean you know the first thing about gender issues or what gay people face.

Telling gay people that they are "bashing" people on a board is like telling Jews they are being "all nazi" about something. It's ignorant and foolish and a shallow flame.

[Jamastiene]

273. Beautiful.

I could not have said it better. Don't you just love how having one gay friend seems to make some people think they are experts on everything about what it is to be gay.

It's curious how someone can accuse someone of bashing someone else when all that person did was quote the person to clarify what they were replying to specifically.

Thank you for your intelligent thoughtful post. :pals:

[cherokeeprogressive]

275. There you go again telling me what I "probably assume"

If a woman, OR a man is murdered, it's wrong. Agreed? Does it matter whether a murder victim is gay or straight? Are you trying to tell me that a gay woman is more dead than a heterosexual one, once the deed is done? Or a man for that matter?

Bashing is bashing, whether done by a gay OR straight person. And an awful lot of it goes on here. "Bashing" is not the exclusive domain of GLBT, straight people, American-Indians OR any other social/political group. It has nothing to do with either Jews OR nazis. I have no idea where that came from.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

bash (bsh)
v. bashed, bash·ing, bash·es

Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: “He bashed the... government unmercifully over the... spy affair” (Lally Weymouth).

v. intr. Informal
To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

n.
Informal. A heavy, crushing blow.
Slang. A celebration; a party.

[Jamastiene]

292. How many gay people go around literally beating up

straight people to the point of near death and then leave them to suffer immeasurably only to die slowly and painfully after being found days later. And how many straight people have their funeral picketed? Give me one instance of an actual straight bashing. I challenge you to do it. I know you won't find where gay people target straights and gang up and kill them brutally like what gay people have to endure in life. And when you say "murdered" are you just counting being killed by gunshot and dying fast or are you counting severe beatings that end in death and no prosecution of the murder because that person was of one sexual orientation or another.

Can you stop for one second and think about what it might be like if the shoe was on the other foot and you were targeted in your daily life by gay people who wanted to bludgeon you to death simply because you are straight? Or are you capable of stopping to think about it because you know you will never have to worry about that sort of thing happening to you. Some of us live with it all our lives and we know that if we are murdered, there might or might not be anyone charged in our murder. We are at the mercy of just how bigoted our local D.A. may be. If said D.A. sees outrage over the murder, they decide to prosecute, i.e. Matthew Shepherd. If they don't hear much outrage in the community, they do nothing. I know about that see. It happens like that where I live, based on sexual orientation.

Gay bashings happen here, not to mention arson, assault, and other violent crimes against people for merely not being white and moving into the wrong neighborhood. You need to take the blinders off. This country hasn't progressed much in the last 50 years although right wing talking points would have us believe all problems have been solved and bigotry no longer exists. Methinks you have bought into that argument, but you are sadly mistaken.

I would highly suggest you get off that pompous pedestal you have placed yourself on and listen to people who are trying to talk to you.

[Sapphocrat]

284. Brava!

When I hear anything that smacks of, "I know all about what it means to be gay, because (choose one: some of my best friends are gay / I actually met a gay person once / my brother's college roommate's best friend's sister knew someone whose nephew was gay)," I know better than to reply, because my patience has just run out.

Well said, RMO!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual identity.

Also, I find the use of the word "preference" offensive. Do you think there is a choice involved? If so, why? If not, why the use of the word 'preference'?

All this school is doing is having children as free of standard gender constrictions as possible. I think this is a good thing and it has nothing to do with "how people interact sexually."

[Lasher]

39. So if I may take that a step further...

do you think gender has nothing to do with sex?

You can find the word "preference" offensive if you want, but this is a very common term that I did not invent. It is a frequently used term when discussing this general issue, and that is why I used it. And you know what? I am offended by people who are just looking for a reason to be offended. That means you.

I think that in many cases, maybe even most, there is not a choice involved, but there are many who would not agree that this is so. I think that in some cases there is a choice involved, but there are also those who would disagree with this opinion.

You ask why I think there is a choice involved, and my response is to ask you to consider bisexuals who choose partners of one sex or another, or both, throughout their lives. If you really want to consider this complicated issue more than this, then I will leave you to your own devices.

I don't have a problem with folks at this school making sure no child is persecuted on account of their preferences or behavior. But I might want my son to have toy guns and big trucks and not dress up like a fairy princess. The last time I checked that was not against the law, and not considered by most reasonable people to be child abuse. You are quite incorrect to infer that the public schools, particularly where kindergarten is concerned, should be used to forcibly impose your beliefs onto the children of others.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. Gender identity still has nothing to do with sex.

Gender is whether someone acts masculine or feminine. Sexual identity is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual et cetera. That is why gender identity has nothing to do with sex.

Also, bisexuals do not choose to be bisexual. They are bisexual. Just like someone who is gay or straight is simply gay or straight. Just because they are attracted to both sexes does not mean there is any sort of choice in being bisexual.

"But I might want my son to have toy guns and big trucks and not dress up like a fairy princess."
Honestly, what would be the big deal if your son dressed up like a "fairy princess" or played with dolls?

"You are quite incorrect to infer that the public schools, particularly where kindergarten is concerned, should be used to forcibly impose your beliefs onto the children of others."
My beliefs aren't forcibly being imposed onto the children of others anywhere. This article is merely stating that children are not being segregated according to male and female. What is wrong with that? If a boy wants to play with trucks, they're still going to let him play with trucks. No one is forcing that boy to be *gasp* a "fairy princess."

[Lasher]

49. Your definition of gender is not universally held.

I believe a person's gender is based upon the sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy. But even by your definition, it is wrong to say that gender identity has nothing to do with sex. To justify this claim I will ask, does gender identity ever come into play when you consider having sex with anyone?

You asked if there was choice involved, a much more broad question than you are trying to reframe here to fit your foregone conclusion. I challenged you to learn more about this particularly complicated subject, hoping that this would not turn into a protracted and senseless flame war. I don't think you are stupid, and so i must suppose that you are already acquainted with of the theoryat least in some cases, sexual preferences are a matter of choice.

For me, since you asked, it would not be a big deal if my son were to dress up like a "fairy princess". But what if I did? What if I went to school to pick up my son in kindergarten to find that he had been dressed up like a "fairy princess" to satisfy the ideologies of people like you? That's what I would have a big problem with.

What's wrong with what the school is doing, insofar as I understand it, is to avoid grouping kindergarten kids into gender-specific groups, for the sole purpose of ensuring that heterosexual identities will not be encouraged. My point is, we should keep these things out of kindergarten - one way or another.

But I don't believe I have everything figured out. That's one reason why I don't think everybody else should be just like me. Maybe you should consider that attitude.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

50. So they're trying to make kids gay?

"sole purpose of ensuring that heterosexual identities will not be encouraged"

Raising kids in a manner that doesn't segregate them by sex is not going to discourage "heterosexual" identities. A person's sexual identity is not a choice and no school is trying to discourage kids from growing up heterosexual. Not even Faux news suggests crap like that.

I don't think everyone else should be like me. That's why I support schools that allow kids to figure out who they are freely without forcing them to do something just because they're a boy or a girl.

No one is forcing little boys to dress like "fairy princesses" to "statisfy the ideologies" of people like me or anybody else.

[Lasher]

176. I didn't say that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

178. Then explain this...

"What's wrong with what the school is doing, insofar as I understand it, is to avoid grouping kindergarten kids into gender-specific groups, for the sole purpose of ensuring that heterosexual identities will not be encouraged."

If they don't want the kids to be heterosexual then...?

[Lasher]

199. I didn't say that either.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

201. I quoted you directly.

What exactly were you saying then?

[Lasher]

210. See this message

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1995811

[JackBeck]

51. I think you're reading the article the wrong way.

This has nothing to do with sexuality. It's about gender roles and how we should just let kids be kids and not shove down their thoughts what the role of "boy" is and what the role of "girl" should be.

This school is very progressively saying that if your son went to school and wanted to dress as a girl, they wouldn't discourage it. You're coming across as a parent who thinks that our schools are a place of indoctrination. This school is pro-kid. All they're doing is to let kids decide who they are. They're not professing an ideology.

[Lasher]

209. Finally, someone wants to communicate!

You might be correct - I could be interpreting the article the wrong way. I like the idea of letting the kids be themselves. I don't think learning of homosexuality or heterosexuality should be any part of a kindergartner's experience. I didn't see a specific mention in the article that it was, but surely you can understand how I could start to wonder if it could come to that. I just want the schools let them be themselves without any birds and bees stuff at that point.

I don't have children in school any more, but I do not think our schools should be a place of indoctrination. Actually I am highly opposed to it, at least insofar as the subject at hand is concerned. Just for the sake of argument, let's say your definition of indoctrination might be the status quo, where all boys are basketball players and all girls are cheerleaders. And my definition of indoctrination might be a policy that requires boys and girls to serve equal time as basketball players and cheerleaders. I am not saying this is, or is not, my actual view. (Had to put that disclaimer in there for all the flamethrowers out there who seem so fond of me right now). My point is, all parents are not going to view this in the same way.

Some parents believe their sons, for example, should receive dolls as gifts, and not only guns and trucks. Some parents would be abhorred if their sons got even one doll for a Christmas gift. I respect the right of parents to decide this sort of thing either way because I believe it is they, and not the schools, who should be the primary custodians of their children.

As you can tell I don't have all this figured out, but hopefully I'll think my way through it. Thanks for your thoughtful post, it was quite refreshing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

384. My Grandmother gave my 5 year old son a Barbie doll

Not sure why exactly. He took it to his room and promptly took it's clothes off. I think he was a little disapointed.

[Lasher]

393. Wonder how well a 'lifelike in every detail' Barbie would sell?

Heh heh. I don't remember how old I was when I made the same discovery.

FYI, I didn't get notified of your reply in 'my posts' because that message of mine is several days old. Just a heads-up in case you wonder why you don't get a reaction elsewhere.

[WindRavenX]

64. LOL dude

o satisfy the ideologies of people like you? That's what I would have a big problem with.

Oh, dear. You're serious, aren't you? How sad.

Yes, people just want to "convert" people over to being gay.

LOL

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

66. I hear you get a killer toaster.

Although, most children don't really want a toaster. Hmm...

[WindRavenX]

70. I think you should work on that

Quickly! We need to convert more people over to the lifestyle choice of being gay!

[CrushTheDLC]

138. How about an Easy-Bake Oven?

Those were always hits with the kids. I used to play with my sister's Easy bake when she wasn't around. Guess that should have made me a "Fairy princess" according to some, but I still like women for some reason :shrug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

139. Oh yeah, I forgot about the Easy Bake Oven.

I always thought that thing was fun.

[Sapphocrat]

103. Yeah, "ideologies" got to me too.

Buzz word thisclose to "agenda".


P.S. Nice to see you, WRX -- been a while. :hi:

[Lasher]

213. I didn't say anything like converting people to being gay.

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

If you disagree with me, why don't you address what I say instead of making things up?

[Sapphocrat]

102. Questions.

You wrote: "I believe a person's gender is based upon the sex of an individual, male or female, based on reproductive anatomy."

Then where do the intersexed fit in? (The archaic term is "hermaphrodite," for those unfamiliar with the word "intersexed".) What is the sex of a person with amorphous "reproductive anatomy"? Is a person with Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY) male or female?

And why do you define gender by sex organs? Are you saying you do not believe that transgendered people exist?

[Lasher]

217. That definition came from American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictinary

http://66.161.12.81/search?q=gender&x=25&y=19

It doesn't seem that radical to me that gender is defined by sex organs. When a child is born, how do they tell if it's a girl or boy?

You make a good point about intersexed, etc. and also transgendered. I don't have an answer to those questions.

[Zhade]

157. YOUR definition isn't held by the worldwide medical community.

You're wrong. Period.

[Lasher]

218. I challenged the claim that gender identity has nothing to do with sex

I said this belief was not universally held. Do you have something to support your claim that I am wrong?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

223. Here's a very trustworthy source....

From The World Health Organization...

What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term “gender”, and how it differs from the closely related term “sex”.

"Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

“Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

“Male” and “female” are sex categories, while “masculine” and “feminine” are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women can menstruate while men cannot
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men do not
Men generally have more massive bones than women
Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

[Hell Hath No Fury]

161. I think what this school is doing..

is trying to not force some kid into a traditional gender role that they are not comfortable with or don't identify with.

I am a straight, almost 47 year old woman.

When I was a little girl, I liked my girlie dresses but more often I wanted to wear jeans and sneakers, climb trees and play with Hot Wheels, wear "boys" bracelets and keep my hair short, work with my Grandpa in his workshop and learn how to use power tools. This was in the 60s before Womens Lib hit, when little girls were supposed to be sugar and spice, and everything nice and sure as heck weren't supposed to know how a carburetor worked.

Thankfully my Mom allowed me to do those things instead of trying to keep me stuffed into some gender role that society said was correct that was not me. She allowed me full expression of ME.

And I'd like to add, my not so girlie exterior and activities never hurt me in the dating department -- straight men have never been confused about who I like in bed. And all the sneakers and tree climbing and power tool useage and chopped hair have never made me want to fuck a woman. :eyes:

You seem to feel they have some ulterior motive, or that they will force another gender role on a child against that child's wishes That is all this school is trying to do -- let kids express their authentic selves.

[readmoreoften]

268. You are wrong. Haruka's version of gender is held

by a majority of sexologists and psychologists. You are simply ignorant on these matters. It is not the job of DUers to educate you. Especially when you have a combative and arrogant attitude towards GLBT people on this board. There is a difference between gender performance and biological sex.

[Jamastiene]

56. I know that and you know that, but

logic has flown out the window at this point. The person wants to remain safely in a state of blind bigotry and deny that it is bigotry. That sucks, I know.

[Lasher]

219. OK that's one more

Now I'm a reich-wing homophobic blind bigot. Thanks for that objective observation.

[Jamastiene]

267. I don't care how many times you deny saying what you said.

And I don't care how many time you try to wiggle out of it. Your post is there for anyone to see. And you said what you said and it is offensive to what appears to be many of the GBLT people here. We tried to tell you it was and you told us it wasn't. You do NOT tell us what to think. And you do NOT tell us what we feel. That is rule number one in common courtesy. You still have yet to even come close to an apologetic tone at all even though we have told you straight out that what you said was offensive. That fact coupled with the fact that you will not listen to us really put up the appearance that you have no respect for us as human beings. That should tell you something.

Btw, welcome to my ignore list. For the record, I normally do not use the ignore function, but you have yet to show any compassion or tolerance and you have yet to say anything that I agree with. Your comments are a slap in the face to those of us who have to go through life being abused, tortured and bashed by people who use that exact same kind of logic that you use. Life is too short to waste it talking to a brick wall.

[Odin2005]

85. Blank-Slatist nonsense.

It is a proven scientific fact that many behavioral differences between men and women are caused by biology, not all differences are the result of culture.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

114. Odin2005, please re-read what I said and then form a response.

Thank you.

[JackBeck]

42. So if your son wanted to dress up like a fairy princess

you'd tell him he couldn't?

No one is forcing any beliefs on these kids. All the school is doing is easing gender stereotypes by allowing these kids to express themselves in any way they want.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

53. Oh Jack...you have it all wrong.

:sarcasm:

For me, since you asked, it would not be a big deal if my son were to dress up like a "fairy princess". But what if I did? What if I went to school to pick up my son in kindergarten to find that he had been dressed up like a "fairy princess" to satisfy the ideologies of people like you?

Thank God for this guy for clearing up my ideology for me. I was about to go through life thinking that it wasn't my goal to force boys to dress up like "fairy princesses." Now I know that is the homosexual agenda. This whole time I was concerned with having equal rights and finding the ultimate pomegranate margarita.

[Jamastiene]

60. LOL

:rofl:

And to think, we only thought we were asking not to be bashed and raped every time we turn around when all along we just wanted to see boys in skirts. I wonder what that guy would call boys wearing kilts?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

63. I know some kilt wearing men who wouldn't take kindly to having it called

a skirt. Only because a kilt is not a skirt. If a guy wants to wear a skirt, they'd be fine with it. Just don't call their kilt a skirt.

[Jamastiene]

79. Point taken, but

I wonder if the other poster would call them girly girls or say they are dressing like a fairy?

[CrushTheDLC]

140. Depends on whether they shave their legs when wearing the kilts

I guess? Wool makes me itch, so I wouldn't know.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

145. Shaving legs has nothing to do with anything.

Many male athletes shave their body hair.

I don't know. Maybe this is a lame attempt at a joke? :shrug:

[Jamastiene]

148. LOL.

:rofl:

[JackBeck]

62. My grrrrlfriend Vanessa sat for two boys here in Brooklyn.

The youngest one loved to dress up as the Little Mermaid and paint his finger nails. Cutie was 7 years old. Mom had no problem with it. But the Dad had issues. Go figure.

[LeftyMom]

77. Gender and sex are separate concepts

Want me to get my human sexuality text out and quote you the relavent bits? We just covered this this past week, so unless science has changed it's mind since thursday...

[Lasher]

222. Sure, I'm always willing to learn.

Please consider this before you dig into your textbooks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1995863

[progmom]

81. "I am offended by people who are just looking for a reason to be offended"

Just looking for reasons? That's a clever way to excuse your bluntly offending people.

[Lasher]

221. The 'offense' is highly unjustified

Please consider what I had to say here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1995863

[Sapphocrat]

289. Who are you to decide when another's offense is "unjustified"?

If I call a black person the N-word, and that person tells me he is offended, who am I to tell him his offense is "unjustified"? (After all, black people call each other the N-word all the time, right?)

No, Lasher, I tell you when I am offended -- it is not your place to tell me when I am not. There is no "justification" required on my part -- and it is your responsibility to accept and respect that.

[foreigncorrespondent]

291. Brava!!!!

Why am I picturing a little kid in the basement of his parents home for?

Well said!

[Lasher]

327. I didn't decide it, I proved it

I proved beyond any doubt that the phrase, 'sexual preference' is used today by The International Lesbian and Gay Association. And yet you, and many other like-minded people here have attacked me for using the exact same phrase, and continue to do so. I didn't decide your attacks are unjustified. I offered a legitimate appeal to the principle of similar circumstances to prove it.

You are ignoring this fact, and think that you are right simply because you assert that you are. You are not. And just because a number of like-minded individuals show up at the same time to wrongfully accuse me, call me hurtful names, and high five each other, that doesn't make you right either.

And now you claim that it is your exclusive domain to decide when you are offended, and mine to accept and respect your verdict. Do you also think you have authority to offend others by wrongfully accusing them, and that they have no right to take offense when you do?

You're wrong, and you're not big enough to admit it.

[Sapphocrat]

329. You proved what, exactly?

I didn't decide it, I proved it

I proved beyond any doubt that the phrase, 'sexual preference' is used today by The International Lesbian and Gay Association.

And so what? What part of "The ILGA does not represent all LGBT people" do you not understand (post #279)?

And yet you, and many other like-minded people here have attacked me for using the exact same phrase, and continue to do so.

I invite you to show me where I have attacked you. I have disagreed, vehemently, with your ideas. There is a difference.

I didn't decide your attacks are unjustified. I offered a legitimate appeal to the principle of similar circumstances to prove it.

I have re-read the above sentence three times, and have no idea what you are trying to say. Explain it to me.

What you stated was that the offense taken at your views was unjustified. I think you are confusing umbrage at your views with personal attacks on you. Again, there is a difference.

You are ignoring this fact,

What fact? That a single presentation, written by a single person on the board of the ILGA, is Gospel?

and think that you are right simply because you assert that you are. You are not. And just because a number of like-minded individuals show up at the same time to wrongfully accuse me, call me hurtful names, and high five each other, that doesn't make you right either.

Who has called you hurtful names? A number of "like-minded individuals" believe your views to be bigoted and hurtful. I agree with that assessment; I believe your views are narrow and damaging. And wrong.

And now you claim that it is your exclusive domain to decide when you are offended,

How much of the "N-word" parallel did you not understand? Yes, it is solely my right to tell you when I am offended.

and mine to accept and respect your verdict.

Bingo. Now you're getting it.

Do you also think you have authority to offend others by wrongfully accusing them, and that they have no right to take offense when you do?

Again, you are confusing dissent with personal attacks. You really need to understand this difference if you are going to attempt to debate a subject with which you have no personal experience.

You're wrong, and you're not big enough to admit it.

I am wrong about what? About being offended? I assure you, I am quite offended. If you can PROVE to me that I am NOT offended, I will be more than happy to apologize to you on CNN. No, wait -- on Fox News. I promise.

[Lasher]

339. I had not yet read post 279

I'm doing my best to respond fairly to all messages here that I think deserve to be acknowledged, as time permits, but I can't pick them all up at once. I have now responded to that one.

I didn't say the ILGA represented all LGBT people, that wasn't my point. Please see the reply to post 279 for an explaination.

***

"I invite you to show me where I have attacked you."

What I want to know is why anyone would assume casting off gender roles is the result of a "mixed up muddled up shook up world."

That's what offends me.

I think that was initially an honest mistake on your part. You were eventually helped to realize that I used that phrase because the OP contained a line from the song Lola and this was the next line. But when confronted by another poster with this fact you said:

Sure but in light of the poster's other remarks, I think he meant exactly what he wrote by that.

And when confronted yet again with this fact you persisted:

I'm aware of that. That doesn't change the sentiment behind the words; the lyric itself says flat-out that it's a mixed-up, muddled, etc., world except for Lola, who, we can safely presume, is a "girl" who acts like a "girl."

No, you can not safely presume that Lola was a "girl" who acts like a "girl". Lola was a transvestite. Ray Davies wrote the lyrics after their manager got drunk at a club and started dancing with what he thought was a woman. Lyrics from {i]Lola:

Well Im not dumb but I cant understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man

Well Im not the worlds most masculine man
But I know what I am and Im glad Im a man
And so is Lola

This was probably another honest, but not quite forgivable, mistake. You were too busy impugning me to even check out the lyrics of the song.

Finally haruka3_2000 pointed it out for you:

Actually Lola is a "man" who acts like a "girl"

And she pasted the relevant lyrics for you to read.

The thought I meant to convey by using the line from Lola, and the only one, was that I recognized the words to the song in the OP. Yet even after you were confronted with the fact that it was a line from a song, you persisted with your baseless claim that I had some sinister intent. The unretracted "girl" who acts like a "girl" comment that you completely dreamed up was just piling on. I did nothing wrong. You can feel offended if you wish, but if you share the sentiment please don't continue to blame me for it. I consider baseless attempts to demean me as attacks, don't you?

Then there was:

Yeah, "ideologies" got to me too. Buzz word this close to "agenda".

I didn't say "agenda", and "agenda" is not a synonym for "ideology" according to the thesarus I use. You were not the only person to claim that I said or meant things that I did not. This was common in this thread. These were attacks because you read things into what I said or meant that were not there.

***

"What you stated was that the offense taken at your views was unjustified. I think you are confusing umbrage at your views with personal attacks on you. Again, there is a difference."

You are correct, I stated that the offense taken at your views was unjustified, but I wish I had said the offense expressed was unjustified, since one's choice of words seem to be of high importance right now. I am not confused about the difference between personal attacks and polite discussion. I have been attacked by you and by others, and wrongly so.

I take strong exception to your claim that I am accountable for whatever way you decide to feel about what I say or do, without any justification on your part. Feel what you want. But you have no 'wild card' to play any way you wish. And likewise, I object to your elitist suggestion that you or anyone else are qualified to opine on any subject and I am not.

And I am not confusing dissent with personal attacks. If you think that unjustly calling someone a homophobe, bigot, and reich winger is dissent and not personal attacks then I have to suspect that you are being disingenuous.

I can't prove that you are not offended, but an apology on Faux Snooze wouldn't do me any good anyway because I won't watch it. What I think I have proven is that you and others are wrong to blame me on account of any such feelings you may have developed.

[Misunderestimator]

341. Please read Haruka's Reply #332...

I am curious how you respond to that.

You protest so much in your defense of your right to use a term that offends us, yet you don't respond to the very "evidence" you keep requesting. Describing homosexuality as a sexual preference is offensive. I don't PREFER to be homosexual, I don't PREFER to have relationships with women. I am hard-wired that way, oriented, if you will.... but it is NOT a preference. Stop hanging on to that bigoted phrase.

No one has attacked you. Pointing out that a phrase you use is a bigoted one, is not attacking you. It's educating you. But you don't seem to care about how we feel.

I will say that your verbose posts defending your right to use a bigoted phrase despite all the objection to it is rather humorous.

[Lasher]

346. I am responding to all as time permits

That's not exactly how I feel. I protest in part because I have been condemned on account of using a phrase that I did not know whould be offensive to anyone, and I've furnished one good example that I think shows that I could not have been fairly expected to know this.

If you accuse me of bigotry, you are calling me a bigot. If you know the definition of bigotry, you will know that most people, and that includes gay people, are sometimes guilty of it. If you want to educate me I am receptive to that. But I think some people were more interested in getting up on a high horse than they were in actually communicating with or educating me.

Yes, I care a lot about how you feel. To tell you the truth though, I was wondering if you care about mine.

Well if you got a good laugh out of my posts I guess something good has come of all this.

Edit: Just noticed that I had already replied to 332.

[Misunderestimator]

351. You have not been "condemned"... you have been corrected.

I find your histrionics and your long winded excuses to continue to offend us amusing, yes.

[Lasher]

355. No I have not been 'corrected'

There is really nothing to 'correct'. You might see it a different way but if you 'correct' someone, it implies that you scold or rebuke them in order to improve their behavior. Your belligerence has only made it less likely that I would agree to do anything to conform to your wishes. I have not agreed to do or stop doing anything, and you have no authority to get me to change that without my consensus.

The more I think about it, the less I understand why anyone would have such a big problem if someone else thinks that being a homosexual is a matter of choice. Honest, I can't see how that demeans anyone, one way or another. Why do you care?

And by expecting people to avoid using the term, 'sexual preference', aren't you trying to censor the views of others, even if they just think that homosexuality might sometimes be a matter of choice? Some people seem to think that being a homosexual is never a choice, but is that position controversial? Are there reasonable and respected people who disagree with that assertion?

You want people to avoid saying or doing anything that would offend you, based on your judgment. But do you always show that same courtesy to others? Do you think homesexuals should avoid public displays of affection, for example, because some people find it offensive? And when conforming to your wishes because something offends you, what if that offends someone else? Who gets to decide? You?

[Misunderestimator]

371. Now THAT is disingenuous... comparing public affection between

gay people to straight people's use of bigoted terms to describe homosexuality.

Why do I care if people think it's a choice? Because, if they think it's a choice, they think I should be able to choose what THEY think is appropriate. But you know all that... and you have become increasingly offensive with every post you make.

Welcome, finally, to my ignore list.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

332. Sorry, but you didn't prove anything.

First of all, it's common courtesy to stop saying something, if it's offending people, especially if it's offending multiple people. Secondly, just because you found a single article from Belgium that uses the term "sexual preference" doesn't exactly prove anything.

Here are links from several large organizations that do not use the term "sexual preference." I'm starting with the HRC because they are the LARGEST gay rights organization in America, and you will not find the term "sexual preference" anywhere on their website.

From the Human Rights Campaign

Protecting GLBT Americans from Job Discrimination. Currently, no federal law safeguards Americans from being fired from their job for their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. It remains legal in 34 states to fire someone based on sexual orientation and only six states provide employment protections statewide based on gender identity. HRC is advocating on Capitol Hill to build support for broad federal non-discrimination legislation and is leading with a coalition of GLBT attorneys, activists and allied organizations to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

Protecting Our Community from Hate Violence. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue to make up the third highest category of all hate crimes reported each year after race and religion, and yet they are not covered under the federal law used to prosecute hate violence. Hate crimes against transgender Americans also occur with alarming frequency. HRC is working with a broad, bipartisan coalition of organizations to help prevent hate crimes, educate the public and work toward passage of a strong federal hate crimes measure.

From GLSEN, another major US organization:
The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

And finally, the actual mission statement from your much-quoted ILGA...

The International Lesbian and Gay Association is a world-wide network of national and local groups dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people everywhere.

Founded in 1978, it now has more than 400 member organisations. Every continent and around 90 countries are represented. ILGA member groups range from small collectives to national groups and entire cities.

ILGA is to this day the only international non-profit and non-governmental community-based federation focused on presenting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as a global issue.

Here is a larger snip from the article you claim as "proving" that "sexual preference" is the right term. If you read closely you'll see that sexual preference is merely a component of sexual orientation.

-Sexual orientation
Sexual orientation is the self-perception of one’s sexual preference and emotional attraction. Sexual orientation can be directed toward members of the same sex (homosexual), the opposite sex (heterosexual), both sexes (bisexual), or neither sex (asexual). Sexuality is experienced through the person’s gender identity (regardless of his or her biology).

...All components of identity are actually on a continuum: sex, gender identity, gender-role expression, and sexual orientation are not mutually exclusive – moving in one direction, does not necessarily mean that one cannot also move in the other direction.

...Clearly there is fluidity in sexual orientation and gender identity. This fluidity should not be interpreted, however, to infer that outside social forces should attempt to manipulate the sexual or gender identities of people to minimize the oppression faced by people within certain social categories. The mutability of the component parts of sexual identity can however encourage society to broaden its acceptance of diverse experiences of gender and sexual expressions.

As for "now you claim that it is your exclusive domain to decide when you are offended, and mine to accept and respect your verdict..."
Yes, it is the exclusive domain of the person who has been offended to decide that they have been offended. And it's just common courtesy to adjust your language to stop offending people. How do you even think you have the right to complain you were called "hurtful names" when you have repeatedly insisted upon language that many GLBT people find hurtful? Why do you think that it's okay to hurt GLBT people and they should just accept it?

[Sapphocrat]

333. haruka, I want to shake your hand one day. n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

335. Thank you.

:pals:

[vincent_vega_lives]

385. Offense is a curious thing.

One can be unjustifiably offended. Refering to a black person as a Nigger is obviously offensive, but mentioning it (as I just did) in certain context should not be. Will it offend someone that I just spelled the word out rather than just use "N-word" as you did? Perhaps, but then I would say that person has a problem with their own "offensability". The word thin-skinned comes to mind. One can be offended by just about anything. Context and intent are important concepts that take a level of maturity and self-confidence to apreciate.

[Zhade]

306. We're queer. You're not. You have no business telling us what offends us.

NT!

[Sapphocrat]

331. I just love you, Zhade! :) n/t

[foreigncorrespondent]

105. Yes it might be common...

...in the straight world, where there are idiots who will use trigger words in order to suggest homosexuality is a choice over being a natural desire.

I sleep with women because I like sleeping with women, not because it is a preferred choice to do so.

I think that in some cases there is a choice involved

Yes the choice would be the one gay people make when they remain in straight relationships due to family/society pressure. I say that because bisexuals don't make a choice about who they sleep with. They happen to LIKE both men and women. Again that isn't a preference either, it is a matter of LIKING!

I really think you need to get with the times and stop using right wing talking points when trying to discuss this.

[Jamastiene]

147. Well said. It looks like some simple

attempts to understand straightforward definitions of the terms: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, male, female, etc. would be helpful for some posters who obviously do not know anything but machismo male/mute woman and straight/straight only.

[Lasher]

226. Please consider this

I address a similar claim in another post. Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1995863

I would be grateful if you would share your reaction with me.

[vincent_vega_lives]

386. Again that isn't a preference either, it is a matter of LIKING!

:think:

[Zhade]

156. I'M bisexual, and it's not a fucking preference.

When I choose to date a woman, that does not eliminate my sexual attraction and capability to romantically love a man, and vice versa.

That is ALWAYS there.

It's not a choice, anymore than you being straight is a choice.

[Lasher]

227. OK that's fine with me.

[Zhade]

307. Good. Kindly don't repeat the lie that it's a preference anymore.

NT!

[Lasher]

330. I want you to answer this directly

Why are you outraged because I used the phrase, 'sexual preference' when it is used today by The International Lesbian and Gay Association? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1995863

If I am a liar, doesn't that make them liars too? Are you going to accuse them of all the things that I have been accused of in this message string? Don't forget to call them reich-wing homophobes.

How can I be expected to even be aware that this phrase might be offensive to some, when I have seen it used by this organization? Considering this, how can you be justified in your attitude toward me because I used the same phrase?

And if you don't want me to use the phrase any more, you would have a better chance of success if you asked me nicely, without calling me a liar. That tactic has not been so far employed anywhere in this entire message string.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

334. I want you to answer this directly:

Please see this post regarding "sexual preference."

"If I am a liar, doesn't that make them liars too?"

No, it doesn't make them liars, because of the context in which they used the term 'sexual preference.' The author of the article used it to describe one of the aspects that makes up one's 'sexual orientation.' Everywhere else in the article and from what I've seen (including mission statement), ILGA uses the term 'sexual orientation,' which is what we have been asking you to use. To this you have responded with hostility.

"How can I be expected to even be aware that this phrase might be offensive to some, when I have seen it used by this organization? Considering this, how can you be justified in your attitude toward me because I used the same phrase?"

Everywhere else on the site uses the term 'sexual orientation,' the term you were asked to use. In lieu of using that term, you went out on a search to find anything that would support your claim that you were right and a bunch of gay people were wrong about what they should be called. You managed to find 'sexual preference' in an article, that used the term once to describe an aspect of 'sexual orientation,' whereas also within that article the widely accepted term 'sexual orientation' was used seven times. The organization also uses 'sexual orientation' throughout the rest of their website.

And if you don't want me to use the phrase any more, you would have a better chance of success if you asked me nicely..

So because you repeatedly insisted upon offending people and then claiming they were not offended (because that is up to you to decide for them), resulting in people not asking you nicely, you will continue to use offensive terms towards them. Very open-minded of you.

[Misunderestimator]

342. Apparently, you have him stumped.

:thumbsup:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

343. Actually, he may have me on ignore.

After he called me a pitiful, sorry old horse he told me that he was done debating me, because I wasn't reasonable.

[Misunderestimator]

352. lovely...

I suppose he thought that wasn't offensive either.

[Lasher]

358. No, I don't have you or anyone else on ignore.

I am not one to cover my ears. I'm sorry for calling you a pitiful, sorry old horse but I was kind of mad at you at that time for having called me a homophobe. I did not say I was done debating you because you are unreasonable (but you are) but I decided we should break it off yesterday because I was anxious that our flame war would cause problems for the mediators. And it did.

I'm surprised that you think I might have put you on ignore because I have interacted with you today. There is more to my life that just this keyboard, so don't expect immediate reactions from me all the time.

[Lasher]

344. Communication is the beginning of understanding

Let's do our best to keep it polite, OK? I've got a pretty thick skin, and I'm not one to cover my ears, but you know I'm anxious about annoying the mediators. I'll do my part. I have errands to run today, so I might not be able to communicate any more today.

Your make an unconvincing argument that my use of the term 'sexual preference' is different from the ILGA's due to context. While you make a good point about their overall content, it is not a legitimate comparison because my post #1 in this thread consists of only 2 paragraphs. You can only speculate what my content might have been if I had produced a similar volume of documentation, and can therefore not legitimately argue that the contexts are different.

You have not, as you claim, asked me to use the term, 'sexual orientation' instead of 'sexual preference'. Nobody in any message that I have so far seen in this thread has asked me to do anything. I have instead been met with hostility and condemnation for innocently using a phrase that some say I should have already known not to use. To me there is a big difference between a demand and a polite request.

I freely admit that I have responded with hostility. But this was a reaction to unjustified hostility that others first expressed against me. You might believe that no one has done anything to justify my feelings of resentment, but I would not agree with that conclusion.

You attempt to show that my use of the term in quesion is not similar to that of the ILGA because the term was used once. I also used the term once, so I don't think that's a fair argument.

I did not go on "...a search to find anything that would support your claim that you were right and a bunch of gay people were wrong about what they should be called." What I produced was an example of the use of the term by a respected organization that supports the values of most gay people. I didn't do this in an attempt to dictate what gay people sould be called. I cited this source to prove they use the term, and it is therefore wrong to condemn me for doing the same thing.

I cited this as an example, and made no attempt to find where the term has been used by other organizations, in policy statements, or in other publications that are seen as being supportive of ideals that are important to most gay people. We both know that it has been many times.

But even if this were not so, the ILGA used the term at least once, and I used it once in my post #1. Similar circumstances deserve similar treatment.

I didn't insist on offending anyone. To tell you the truth I had no idea anyone one earth took exception to the use of the phrase. And if you're going to say that it was incumbent on me to know it already, then get ready for a pop quiz on a subject that I spend more time thinking about than you do. What I'm saying is, people have no right to condemn me on account of what I said in post #1, and I have offered an argument that I think justifies my position.

And I'm also saying that it is not likely that you or anyone else will get be to do anything whatsoever by bringing my character into question for no good reason. I think most people react to that negatively, and I don't think that's being closed minded.

[Misunderestimator]

350. Keep it polite? You started the impoliteness by refusing to understand

how you offended people. No one has been hostile here but you. You DO insist on offending us because you continue to do so.

"To tell you the truth I had no idea anyone one earth took exception to the use of the phrase. "

Now you do... so why don't you stop?

[Lasher]

357. I am doing my best to be polite but sometimes my best isn't good enough

But if you think it's impolite of me to refuse to say something you want to hear when I believe it to be untrue, then I am impolite as you have charged and will continue to be.

I have stated the reasons why I believe I should not have been confronted with hostility when I used the phrase, 'sexual preference' in my post #1, and no one has convincingly refuted my argument. And I have not since used the phrase except by legitimate reference in this message string, as others have done.

There likely could have come a time early on, if I had been treated fairly, when I would have agreed not to use the phrase again. But that time has passed. I will use the phrase again, or will not use it, based on what I think is right at the time. I'm just not going to give you the committment you want, partly because I don't think you deserve that courtesy.

When confronted with unjustified belligerence, I am not usually appreciative, and am not normally as sympathetic with people as I would otherwise be. I think this is a reasonable reaction in these cases.

[Misunderestimator]

367. LOL.. That's great.

Even though no one has treated you with hostility, because you perceive it that way, now you will petutantly continue to use a phrase you know is insulting to homosexuals because people here didn't treat you with kid gloves.

Belligerence... LOL. Be as unsympathetic as you like. It's clear that you'll do what you like regardless of how it makes others feel. Have a wonderful day.

[Lasher]

369. I admit that I am not as sympathetic right now as I would normally be.

But this feeling is justified because I have been treated unfairly.

Why do people claim the phrase insulting when they use it themselves? Isn't that hypocritical?

The phrase, 'sexual orientations' has been used in this message thread by one of those who has condemned me for using the same phrase in my post #1. And she was not even politely asked by anyone else to stop using the phrase. In fact, when this irony was pointed out to others, the obvious inconsistency was ignored.

The phrase is contained in the subject line of this message:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1992976

which reads, "Gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do with each other."

Please read the entire subthread that begins with that message. If you do you might understand why I believe I have been singled out for an unjustified and disingenuous exercise of piling on.

I don't expect to be treated with kid gloves. But don't expect me to be sympathetic when I am met with unwarranted beligerence and unreasonable demands.

[Misunderestimator]

370. "Why do people claim the phrase insulting when they use it themselves?"

Why do you keep repeating yourself? No one here who finds that insulting uses it themselves. Jamastiene is one person. Plenty of others have informed you of your error. You really need to stop. Give it up.

I'm done here anyway... I don't get much satisfaction talking to walls.

[kiahzero]

372. So, basically

There likely could have come a time early on, if I had been treated fairly, when I would have agreed not to use the phrase again. But that time has passed. I will use the phrase again, or will not use it, based on what I think is right at the time. I'm just not going to give you the committment you want, partly because I don't think you deserve that courtesy.

You're going to use bigotted language because you feel like one person wasn't nice to you. How noble of you.

[Lasher]

375. I didn't say what I was going to do, one way or another

But no one here has offered a convincing argument that I have used bigoted language.

I have furnished an example of a pro-gay organization that uses the phrase. I have also shown that one of those who have criticized me in this thread for using the phrase, 'sexual preference' has used the same phrase herself here in this very thread. And another in this thread advised that he uses the phrase also neither of the two were even asked politely to stop using it. These are only examples, there are many more to be found. If you care anything about fairness you will ask yourself why I am a bigot if I use the phrase, but others are not if they do the same thing.

Is it because you think I am a heterosexual?

[Name removed]

345. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jamastiene]

276. I hear you.

I don't think any orientation is a choice. Hello. Who here has ever fell for someone all the while fully realizing that they did not want to be falling for that person? I'd be willing to be quite a few, if not the majority.

[Zhade]

308. Got THAT going on as we speak.

And the person is in a relationship. :(

[Sapphocrat]

323. It's called "unrequited love."

And boy, does THAT ever suck! LOL

[vincent_vega_lives]

383. I don't buy the sexuality "on-off" switch

The either-or, homo-hetero view is a byproduct of the major Religions. In the pre christian days there was just preference. In Greece ALL Spartan males were raised homosexual starting at the age of 7 until the age of 21, when they were forced to take a wife. Roman views of sexuality were very liberal, but they had no concept of "gay or straight", it was preference. Even now if you concede that bisexuals and "experimentation" exist, then you must conclude that sexuality is more analog than digital. It is a combination of complex factors that make up one's sexual identity and for some it certainly may not be a choice, but to paint all with that either-or, on-off brush is, IMHO just as ignorant as the "homosexuality is sin" crowd.

Feel free to bash me as a homophobe now.

[Lasher]

392. I can't think of a better example of why I've taken a stand on this

You might have a good point and you might not but I don't think it would be a good idea to try to censor arguments like yours.

I've been disappointed because this discussion has seemingly concluded in an impasse. I guess what I regret most is that I said some things in anger I should not have, but I'm grateful that the mediators have removed those of my indiscretions. But I know that noncombatants are currently going through this message string, which is probably a good opportunity to get both (or maybe the several) sides of an important argument.

I've pretty much decided to back away from this now, as I have been given a fair opportunity to make my case, and I don't want to be a lightning rod that impairs further communication. I've always had a problem keeping my big stupid mouth shut though, and so I succumbed to the temptation to reply to your contribution here. I'll try to do better.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

134. Cool song!

L-O-L-A Looo la!

[Lasher]

225. Thank you, this is the nicest message I have received for 2 days.

I always liked Lola.

[NMMNG]

193. Where in the article did it say that there were discussions of sex,

or "sexual preferences"?

[Lasher]

224. Nowhere in the article.

[Threedifferentones]

249. LOOOOOLA

LALALA LA LOOOOOLA

[David Zephyr]

262. It's 2006 & a progressive forum, but you use choose the word "preference"

I don't need to know anything else about you, Lasher. Thanks for the revealing information about yourself, though.

[Kickoutthejams23]

2. This kind of reminds me of all the progressive parents.

That face the opposite problem. Sons that can turn any household object into a gun and girls that use the toy trucks given to them to play baby truck and mommy truck. Let kids be kids. I see nothing wrong with what the school is doing but making a big deal about differences and unisex bathrooms in kindergarten seems a little over the top.

[electron_blue]

4. LOL this happened to us. I got my daughter a honking big tonka truck

for Christmas to kind of balance out all the ultrafeminine things I knew the rest of the family would give her. She loved it! An hour later she was still playing with it. The "mommy" truck was carrying all her "baby" trucks in the big dump bucket part of it. I had to laugh.

I still say gender indoctrination is EVERYWHERE. I have all but given up trying to stamp out all the little fires of friends, family, neighbors and teachers pushing constant sexism at my daughter, w/o them even realizing it.

[NotGivingUp]

13. 'Gender indoctrination is EVERYWHERE'...you got THAT right!!

[Atman]

19. When my son was five we gave him a Fischer-Price kitchen -- and a Tonka

My in-laws were staying with us that Christmas. My Southern Baptist in-laws. They listen to nothing but Christian music, have bible verses on all the pictures in there home, their entire lives center around their church. Anyway, when all the kids went to bed and we started laying out the stuff around the tree, they freaked when we brought out the Fischer-Price plastic kitchen monstrosity, even though it was placed right next to his big honkin' yellow Tonka trunk. "What are you doing?! What do you want him to turn into?!" they shrieked at us.

I calmly said "a guy who knows how to cook his own dinner?" as if I didn't know what they were referring to.

Christmas morning, he went straight for the kitchen...for about three seconds, then was all over the honkin' yellow Tonka dump trunk.

He's engaged to a wonderful girl now. And he knows how to cook and fix stuff around the house!

.

[Jamastiene]

294. That is the way I was raised.

I always got a mixture of toys and chose the ones I preferred. Between the Barbie dolls and the Tonka truck, I loved the Tonka truck much better. Later, I discovered that the Barbie doll's legs were bendable, so I stuffed her into the truck and "drove" her to the "ball games" that I made up. Coincidentally, my cousin (male) came over one day and played with dolls much of the time while he was here, because he liked them better. One day he broke the Barbie's legs and I was slightly upset. Later, I looked at how she was made. I was fascinated to learn that her bendable knees were made bendable by a simple rubber band attached to the plastic with a bobbin for the rubber band to glide just so. I just turned the experience into a learning experience. The Tonka truck was unscathed. I protected it like it was a real Jaguar or something.

Later, I still played tomboyish type games and my cousin went on West Point and joined the US Army. So, push comes to shove, we both were offered both sets of toys and chose the opposite's toys. He's straight and I am one woman who loves women. I firmly believe that if I had only been given "female" toys, I would still be a lesbian today. I would have been bored rather quickly as a child with only the "female" toys, simply because I wasn't that interested in them. I honestly do not think it would have mattered either way. That just proves even more of what you are saying is correct.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

295. My sister and I both grew up with boy and girl toys.

We both played with barbies, G.I. Joes and toy guns. Guess what? I turned out gay and she turned out very straight in the homecoming queen sort of way. Kids should just be allowed to play how they want. It doesn't seem to have much effect on what they turn into as an adult.

[Jamastiene]

299. It really doesn't.

Some kids will turn a toy into something outside the norm while others will play with them in a pretty common typical fashion. Whether they grow up to be gay or straight really has nothing to do with what toys they play with.

Something about that article has been really standing out in my head. Am I understanding this right? They used to line the kids up in two lines, one for boys and one for girls? And now they don't? You know, I can only remember one small short period of time where I was ever lined up that way in school. When I was really young, I went to a small private school with less than 100 students. The girl's bathroom broke and it took a couple of weeks to fix it. During that short period of time, they lined us up in "boys" line and a "girls" line to go to the bathroom. The boys went first and then when they were finished and went back to class, we went. Other than that, we were lined up by what grade or class we were in for any sort of outside the class type activities. How many schools line kids up that way, I wonder?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

302. When I went to Catholic school...

we were lined up boy & girl. Also our recesses were split up. Boys played basketball and football. Girls sat around and played clapping & singing games with the nuns. I always got introuble for sneaking off to play with the boys. However, I know many straight women who say they would have done the same thing.

[ulysses]

28. eh. not saying that gender roles aren't reinforced in ways that

are unnecessary and/or harmful, but it seems to me that it's largely based on what the kid is into. We've gone through phases of trying to get Chris involved with his stuffed animals and dolls, role playing stuff, but he has no use for it for the most part. He wants stuff that he can manipulate mechanically, and that's fine.

I grew up turning sticks into "guns", playing with trucks (Tonka rocks!), the traditional boy stuff. Now I do most of the cooking in the house and we split cleaning duties. I don't own a real gun. Go figure.

[chimpymustgo]

93. My daughter had dolls and trucks. All her boy friends played with dolls

at our house - why - because it was novel. They did hair, they cooked, they put the dolls in the trucks and carted them around the Lego houses they made.

It's almost impossible to tell what gender preferences for toys naturally exist - if any. We begin the indoctrination before children are born, and the culture reinforces it every second of their lives.

I think it's great for kids to slip outside the stereotypical straighjackets - and just play!

[Iris]

250. when my brother played with cars and trucks, he did the same thing.

We had a fisher price gas station with a garage in it. Every day the cars and trucks went to work in the morning and then came home, had dinner, and went to bed in their garage.

[enlightenment]

17. I seem to recall having uni-sex bathrooms in elementary school

way back in the dark ages (early 60s) -- and before you ask me if I grew up on a commune, this was a DOD school on a military base in Texas.

[hedgehog]

3. Something new every day.

The emphasis was on unisex when my kids were little, so it is hard to realize how gender specific some activities are supposed to be at such an early age. Let the kids have a free hand as long as they aren't hurting anyone. As for playing with dolls, none of my girls ever played with a baby doll. They cuddled kittens instead as did their brotheres. They did like lining up all the My Little Ponies for a pony parade and they all liked dressing up as fairy princesses. They also got into Legos along with their two brothers. As far as I know, the score is 3 straight, 1 gay. The straight sisters are aiming at stereotypical male professions and the gay sister is aiming at a stereotypical female profession. Go figure.

[natrat]

6. it's ok except unisex bathroom, not fair to the kid who doesnt like it

[LizW]

31. Is that really all that unusual?

My sons' school in Alabama had one bathroom for both sexes over a decade ago. There was one little restroom that was entered directly from the kindergarten classroom, and both sexes used it. I always thought it was for convenience, so the little ones didn't have to go far away when they had to "go" quickly. There were also separate girls' and boy's bathrooms down the hall, and they could use those if they wanted to.

I don't get what the big deal is, as long as privacy is maintained. Everyone's bathrooms in their homes are "unisex".

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Doesn't your home have unisex bathrooms?

Mine does. I agree, what is the big deal?

[uppityperson]

87. I have freaked people out in stores, line for women's room, men's empty

I look at the line, look at the men's room, shrug and go into it. If a man shows up, he'll just have to wait for me to finish. I figure if women can wait in line, he can wait for 1 person. Sometimes other women follow me, sometimes not. And I have given them that line, doesn't everyone use the same bathroom in your house?

Guess there is something about public bathrooms, but let me tell you this important fact: I have never sat in pee in the men's room, only in women's toilets as some women don't want to touch so squat and don't wipe because then they might have to touch it. Disgusting.

[Warren Stupidity]

150. Well check out the urinals some time.

We just sort of point in the general direction, and as the situation near the urinal gets worse, we start backing up, compounding the problem. Yuck.

[cgrindley]

211. So your home has a row of urinals?

And a bunch of decrepit stalls with the doors half off the hinges?

[Warren Stupidity]

220. How did you know?

I didn't think the issue was the state of the bathrooms but the fact that both sexes are using them. I could be wrong though.

[cgrindley]

232. So you'd be comfortable

With a pristine wall of urinals being used in a unisex bathroom?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

233. Unisex bathrooms usually don't have urinals.

They tend to just be private bathrooms or just have stalls.

[cgrindley]

252. Children are sensitive

Do you really think that anyone's going to want to pinch an almighty loaf knowing that the opposite sex might be lurking around? You honestly think that such things won't boost up harrassment and open the school to all manner of lawsuit?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

253. Most kindergarden bathrooms are private bathrooms.

Just like you presumeably have at home. I'm sure kids will be able to "pinch a loaf" (what are you 10?) without the school being opened to "all manner of lawsuit."

[Jamastiene]

263. The Fayetteville VA hospital has unisex bathrooms

with one urinal and one stall. The stall, btw, is set up so that you don't have to try to look inside to see bare skin through the giant cracks in between the door and the frame of the thing. I hate having to use that bathroom. I usually avoid it and walk all over the place looking for a single bathroom.

[Warren Stupidity]

274. sure. what the heck is the big deal?

People shit and pee. Wow. Shocking. By the way, urinals are pretty useless for small kids.

I am amazed at what an uptight freaked out scared shitless about everything society we have become.

[Lasher]

45. There is a 'unisex' bathroom for the kindergarten where my wife works

But nobody calls it that, or even thinks of it in that manner. It's just impractical to have more than one bathroom that's dedicated for the use of the kindergarten kids.

[Sapphocrat]

107. My only complaint about the unisex bathrooms in kindergarten...

...was that the little boys had a devil of a time aiming into the toilets (there were no urinals, just stalls), and we little girls had to hop, skip, and jump over little rivers of urine everywhere. LOL

[Jamastiene]

270. For some of them,

their aim does not improve at the onset of adulthood or even into their later years either. :)

[Jamastiene]

7. Gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do with each other.

Someone can be transgendered and straight. Someone can be transgendered and gay. Some girls are tomboys and some boys are more feminine. Whoopety do. If society didn't force young children to fit into gender roles for a while, I for one, think it would be interesting to see just how many children would bust the stereotypes into oblivion. I don't see a real problem with most of that they have decided to do, but the unisex bathrooms, unless they are stall-less single bathrooms with doors that can be locked, I don't know about that part. I, for one, like my privacy. Of course, I am no longer in school. :shrug:

[lastliberalintexas]

311. Very ironic post you have there, given your and others

condemnation of another poster in this thread. :shrug:


and on edit- The unisex bathrooms have almost always been the norm in the lower grades of elementary schools, as the restroom is usually within or adjacent to the classroom. Schools do this for safety reasons, to minimize the amount of time that the youngest students are outside of the classroom. It was even standard in backwards Texas 30 years ago, go figure. And I've never even heard the most backwards redneck jackass of a parent complain about them.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

312. Actually none of that post is ironic.

She's completely right about the difference between sex & gender.

You might think her opinion of the bathroom situation is ironic, but it's not. It doesn't fit into any of the various categories of literary or rhetorical irony. Personally, I'm not concerned much about the bathroom situation of some kindergardeners, but some people get uptight about bathrooms. She's completely right on with the first part of her post.

[lastliberalintexas]

313. Perhaps I merely should have said her use of *preference* was ironic

rather than calling the entire post ironic. Maybe that makes my meaning clearer? That she repeatedly beat up on another poster in this very thread for the use of a word which she herself used? Kind of ironic, no?

[Sapphocrat]

322. Oh, come on...

Nobody's trying to eliminate the word "preference" from the English language; what I (and many others) object to is the idea that sexual/affectational orientation is a conscious decision that can be changed, when it's about as deliberate as choosing to have blue eyes.

See what I said earlier about preferring to shag Johnny Depp over Ann Coulter. For that matter, I prefer fajitas over burritos, I prefer Toyotas over Chevrolets, and I, too, prefer separate bathrooms for men and women.

That doesn't mean I won't eat burritos, drive a Chevy, or use a unisex bathroom.

Come on, LLIT, don't pretend you don't get what's been going on here. You're too smart for that.

[Lasher]

359. But Jamastiene used the term, 'sexual preferences'

You don't seem to have a problem with that, and neither does haruka3_2000 or any other participant in this message string for that matter. Why are you reacting differently in similar circumstances? If you don't have a problem with this, then why is it wrong of me to use the very same phrase - except that I did not use the plural form of 'preference'?

And what about Jamastiene, who alleged elsewhere in this thread: "You are obviously only interested in taking second, third, and even archaic usages of a words you use to justify your obvious total disregard for the humanity of GLBT people." Why does she think I am so evil for using the very same phrase that she herself used here?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

362. What message did Jamastiene use 'sexual preference' in? I don't see it.

[Lasher]

365. In the subject of this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1992976

Which is: "Gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do with each other."

Please read the entire subthread, starting with that message.

This has already been pointed out to you here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=2002121

[Sapphocrat]

363. OK, Lasher, this is my last post to you.

Honestly, I'm tired of talking to you. Your tenacity han't worn me down; I simply realize that this is just a big waste of time -- time I could be spending debating issues with people who want to understand things outside their realm of experience, instead of looking for reason after reason to tell me that I'm just plain wrong to think and feel as I do.

Lasher, dozens of people have wasted thousands of words trying to make you understand some very simple, straightforward concepts. There are only so many ways to say the same thing, and no matter how many people attempt to explain things in a way you will understand, you just don't. Or won't.

I know you're not stupid; I think you really do understand everything we've been telling you, but, for whatever reason, you're stuck in the same groove.

You know, nobody's going to think you're weak, or less of a man or anything, if you admit that maybe, just maybe, you might not be 150% right about everything -- especially on subjects about which you have absolutely no personal experience. I wouldn't presume to know what it's like to be, say, a soldier -- so I'd never take on a whole platoon and lecture them about how wrong I think they are about absolutely everything. At best, I would expect to get my ass kicked three ways this side of hell.

In fact, I (and, I believe, the majority of all DUers) have far more respect for a person quick to admit he's been mistaken -- or at least quick to acknowledge the validity of an opponent's point of view, no matter how how much he may disagree with that P.O.V.

I could reply to your last few posts to me (which say, in essence, that it's hypocritical to expect you to stop using the phrase "sexual preference" when some gay people -- like a single translesbian in Belgium unlikely to show up and defend herself here -- use the same term), but what's the point? You'll just find some new issue to pick apart, and we'll go 'round and 'round until the number of posts in this thread bring down DU's server.

The bottom line, to quote haruka3_2000 (post #322), who put it best, is this: "(I)t's common courtesy to stop saying something, if it's offending people, especially if it's offending multiple people."

If you don't believe that, then I invite you to start a thread bashing southerners, or fat people, or atheists. No, actually, I don't recommend you do; I don't want to abet a surefire flame war, and Skinner would (quite rightly) have my head on a stick if I did. Besides, I'm sure you'll find yourself in the middle of such threads eventually, asking why everybody seems to be piling on you. The thing is, it won't be a pile-on in those threads, any more than it has been in this one. It's pretty simple, really: When you find yourself outnumbered, and everybody seems to be mean and unreasonable except you, it's probably time to ask yourself if it's really possible that you're the only one who's always right.

That said, I'm going to stop replying to you in this thread. I'm not out of the thread, and I'm not putting you on ignore, but I'm not going to let you engage me in any more pointless, nit-picking arguments. At least in this thread. LOL

No, Lasher, you haven't "won" anything here. I'm just walking away. It's turned into a pissing contest, and I never did like pissing contests.

So I leave you to your assumptions, and sincerely hope you stop believing that every disagreement with you constitutes a personal attack. I also hope you learn to stop putting words in people's mouths; i.e., "Why does she think I am so evil...?" (post #359)

No one ever called you "evil." No one ever called you a lot of things.

Good luck to you --

Sapphocrat

[Lasher]

391. OK Sapphocrat, that seems prudent.

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised the mediators didn't lock this thread a long time ago. I guess they hoped that something good might happen as a result of the exchanges, and maybe it has. It is an ill wind indeed that blows and brings nothing good at all. This overall discussion has inspired me to think my way through a few things, and I will be reflecting on this lively exchange for some time.

I know you can't be all bad - after all, you're not a Republican. Actually I think you're probably a pretty nice person, partly because you accidentally let some of that show in this message. :)

I'll look forward to discussing other subjects with you in other threads - and I won't be carrying any baggage with me from this message string when I do.

I wish you well.

Lasher

[jobycom]

8. I raised my daughters that way, without regard to gender.

My older daughter is more adjusted than most of her friends, doesn't get into the boy-girl image issues, and, judging from the history file on her web browser, quite into boys.

My younger daughter fits "feminine" gender stereotypes a little more closely--she likes ballet, likes makeup, and dresses in dresses, but she is still not obsessed with it, and plays "boy" games as much as "girl" games.

There is no such thing as gender beyond the physical. It's all a myth forced on children at a young age. I could see it in the way people reacted to my older daughter. I dressed her as neutrally as I could, so people always assumed she was a boy when they met her. "My, that's a strapping young lad," they woudl say, or something like that, in a hardy, husky voice (women and men). WHen I would drop in a little phrase like, "Yes, I'm proud of her," their entire attitude would change. First they would apoligize as if they had thoroughly offended me, then they would lower the volume and raise the pitch of their voice, and say, "Oh, isn't she just a darling."

Bullshit to anyone who claims these differences aren't taught. They are completely taught. Cudos to Park Day School, and may that become the norm in the future.

[Jamastiene]

10. Absolutely correct.

Trying to stuff children (or adults for that matter) into traditional gender stereotypes is ridiculous. I can't wait for the day that the majority of our species grows up and opens their narrow little minds to the possibility that the gender stereotypes have limited our potential as a species thus far. I know women who would make better firemen than men and men who would make better chefs than women.

Also, gender stereotypes and sexual preferences are just two different things. That is just the plain simple truth. Every possible concoction/mix of the two we can conjure in our minds really exists.

[Hope springs eternal]

14. Hmmm...

Why is girls playing dolls social engineering but what you did isn't?


If there was no reason for different genders, then why are there different genders in the first place?


I'm sorry, homosexuality is one thing, but eliminating genders messes kids up, period.

[JackBeck]

16. Since you seem so confident in your assertion,

can you provide facts or studies that show how "eliminating genders messes kids up"?

[Hope springs eternal]

20. The studies shall be forthcoming....

While I go reasearch some stuff, here's something to chew on:


-If gender was of no consequence, why has youth violence/delinquency soared with the absence of the father? After all if mommy is mommy and daddy </sarcasm>

-If gender is of no consequence, why is it wrong to hit women? (unless, you're enough of a creep that you do believe in men hitting women)

-If there is truly no gender differences, why should any research be put into post-partum depression, breast cancer, or the myraid of other issues affecting women (and men).

-99+% of all violence is done by males


Listen, I'm all for women doctors, CEO's and the like, but the fact is God, Flying Spaghetti Monster or whoever made men and women. Without either one, we'd have serious issues.


Difference should be celebrated, not eliminated. Peace.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. Some questions...

"If gender was of no consequence, why has youth violence/delinquency soared with the absence of the father? After all if mommy is mommy and daddy"

Do you think that's a result of a single parent househould, regardless of whether it's a mother or father as the single parent? What about gay parents? Should gay people be allow to have children, since they will grow up lacking a mother or father (even though they will still have two parents)?

----------
"If gender is of no consequence, why is it wrong to hit women? (unless, you're enough of a creep that you do believe in men hitting women)"

Except in self-defense or martial arts, hitting people of either sex is wrong, because unnecessary violence is wrong. However, in the case of self-defense or in the martial arts, men can hit women and women can hit men.
-----------

"If there is truly no gender differences, why should any research be put into post-partum depression, breast cancer, or the myraid of other issues affecting women (and men)."

You don't seem to understand the difference between sex and gender. Sex is the physical attributes of being male or female. Gender is the psychological and social constructs of masculinity and femininity. Post-partum depression, breast cancer, testicular cancer are NOT gender issues. They are sex-specific health issues.

-----------
"99+% of all violence is done by males"
If this statistic is true, then I think you need to look more into why males are often more violent. I would bet a significant portion of it has to do with raising boys in a "boys will be boys" mentality, instead of raising them in a more gender-neutral, peaceful manner.

[Hope springs eternal]

36. food for thought

"Do you think that's a result of a single parent househould, regardless of whether it's a mother or father as the single parent? What about gay parents? Should gay people be allow to have children, since they will grow up lacking a mother or father (even though they will still have two parents)?"

----------
It's a lot of things, but kids need a balanced prespective. As for gays being parents, it's better than a shelter, but not optimal. So do I support gay adoption? yes.

"Except in self-defense or martial arts, hitting people of either sex is wrong, because unnecessary violence is wrong. However, in the case of self-defense or in the martial arts, men can hit women and women can hit men."
-----------
I was rasied that men show restraint. I guess not evryone was...

"You don't seem to understand the difference between sex and gender. Sex is the physical attributes of being male or female. Gender is the psychological and social constructs of masculinity and femininity. Post-partum depression, breast cancer, testicular cancer are NOT gender issues. They are sex-specific health issues."

-----------
Got me on that one.


"If this statistic is true, then I think you need to look more into why males are often more violent. I would bet a significant portion of it has to do with raising boys in a "boys will be boys" mentality, instead of raising them in a more gender-neutral, peaceful manner."

Look, I didn't say girls can't be who they want to be, nor should boys be forced either. But trying to purposly muddle genders is only going to cause more problems. The key is not "gender-netural" (that even sounds creepy), but using gender-specific talents in a useful and meaningful way.




BTW, I used to be a cross-dresser. But hormones took over and now I like my heels on girls and not me. I wasn't "forced" to stop, I simply found my place. Difference should be celebrated, not "neutralized".

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

38. Responses & requests.

I would really like to see some actual proof that gay people are less optimal parents than straight parents. I don't think you can find any that doesn't come from Focus on the Family on some such nonsense.

As for being raised with the idea of "men showing restraint," my response comes from there are indeed men out there who are physically assaulted by women. This often goes unreported due to the social stigma involved with this. However, I believe if a woman attacks a man (and trust me women can cause severe physical damage to a man) then that man should be allowed to defend himself appropriately. Also, in the martial arts, we don't have gender boundaries. Men and women in the martial arts are taught respect and self-restraint towards everybody. However, there is no gender in training. Men will be hit by women and women will be hit by men.

As for "neutralizing" gender, no one is "neutralizing" it. They simply aren't segregating kids on the basis of it. If a boy wants to do "boy" stuff, then that boy can go do boy stuff. If a girl wants to do "boy" stuff, then she is allowed to do it. What is the harm with that?

BTW, I'm still waiting for a real response to the statistic of 99+% of violence being caused by men. I also would like a cited source for it.

[JackBeck]

40. I'm still waiting for the studies that show how this messes up kids.

I've had that Final Jeopardy music playing in head for some time now.

I would also love to see that "99%+" research. Methinks someone is pulling stuff out of ones behind.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

43. I have a feeling that we'll be waiting for awhile.

Also, in a post up above, Lasher seems to think that I want to use the public schools to indoctrinate his son into dressing like "fairy princesses." You can go play with him for awhile while waiting for Hope Springs Eternal to find his "studies."

[JackBeck]

44. Already there.

I feel like we've been tag-teaming today.

:pals:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

47. Awww...

:palhug:

[Hope springs eternal]

58. your wait is over

"I would also love to see that "99%+" research. Methinks someone is pulling stuff out of ones behind."


Still, while the equivalent percentage compared to male violence is small (15 percent to 85 percent)

This little stat was pulled from crimelibrary.com.


And this is violent crime. I think when you factor war/domestic violence in as well, you get much grimmer numbers.

[JackBeck]

71. So you did pull the 99% out of your ass.

Thanks for coming clean.

Now how about them numbers showing that easing gender stereotypes messes up kids...

[Hope springs eternal]

80. add war

That's just violent crime. Add war/genocide.

I said "violence". That includes everything. In many parts of the world, women don't even have the power to cause violence.


Add it all up and you do get 99%. I suggest you learn to read before you decide to tear into some kid trying to make his case.

[JackBeck]

86. Last time I checked, women fight in wars, too.

I know how to read. I also know not to make stuff up without supporting it with facts. You still haven't proved that 99%+ violence is committed by men.

Still waiting on a response to my original request,as well.

Cheers.

[Jamastiene]

106. Damn fine response.

I could learn a lot by listening to you. Job well done.

[Hope springs eternal]

124. only recently

you're only jumping on a number because you feel you're sexuality is under attack. 85, 95, 99, as long as it's overwhelmingly male, my point has been made.

"Nursing became the one and only area of female contribution that involved being at the front and experiencing the horror of war."

quote about WWI from wikipedia.org. Women did work the manufacturing fields however.

"With this expanded horizon of opportunity and confidence, and with the extended skill base that many women could now give to paid and voluntary employment, women's roles in World War II were even more extensive than in the First World War. By 1944, more than 2.3 million women were working in the war industries in the U.S., building ships, aircraft, vehicles, and weaponry. Women also worked in factories, munitions plants and farms, and also drove trucks, provided logistic support for soldiers and entered professional areas of work that were previously the preserve of men.


A grave of three Polish female soldiers who fell during the Polish Defensive War of 1939, among their colleagues interred at Warsaw's Powązki CemeteryThis necessity to use the skills and the time of women was heightened by the nature of the war itself. While World War I was mainly fought in France and Germany and was a war arguably without clear aggressor or villain, World War II was truly a global conflict where countries were invaded or under the threat of invasion from leaders in Germany (Adolf Hitler) and Japan that had ambitions of world domination. In these circumstances the absolute urgency of mobilizing the entire population made the expansion of the role of women inevitable. The hard skilled labour of women was symbolized in the United States by the figure of Rosie the Riveter.

The contribution by women to the war effort in the United Kingdom was acknowledged with the use of the words "Home Front" to describe the battles that were being fought on a domestic level with rationing, recycling, and war work, such as in munitions factories and farms.

The improved position of women (of a debatable extent) in the Soviet Union, combined with the sheer size of the Soviet front, saw Soviet women serving in fighting roles, including snipers such as Lyudmila Pavlichenko, fighter pilots such as Lydia Litvyak and Katya Budanova and partisans like Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya.

In the Allied countries thousands of women enlisted as nurses serving on the front lines. Thousands of others joined defensive militias at home.

Much like in United Kingdom, the Finnish women took part in defence; nursing, air raid signaling, rationing and hospitalization of the wounded. This Finnish organisation was called Lotta Svärd, where voluntary women took part in auxiliary work of the armed forces to help those fighting on front. Lotta Svärd was among, if not, largest voluntary group during war. Though they never held guns (a rule among the Lottas), without women's help Finland probably could not have held off the Soviet forces that long.

The Third Reich, contrary to popular belief, had similar roles for women. The SS-Helferinnen were regarded as part of the SS if they had undergone training at a Reichsschule SS but all other female workers were regarded as been contracted to the SS and chosen largely from concentration camps. Women also served in auxillary units in the navy (Kriegshelferinnen), air force (Luftnachrichtenhelferinnen) and army (Nachrichtenhelferin). Hundres of women auxiliaries (Aufseherin) served for the SS in the camps, the majority of which were at Ravensbrück."

The above outlines WWII. As you can see, women were not the majority holding the guns.


Here's how the numbers break down:

24.5 million
The number of military veterans in the United States.
(From the upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006.)

1.7 million
The number of veterans who are women.
(From the upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006.)

This is from census.gov. Using math, this comes out to about 93-94% male. But alas, this shall not be good enough!

"Some historical records verify the fact that over sixty women were either wounded or killed at various battles during the Civil War."

Out of 600,000(about.com)

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/festjc/chap21.htm

the above website shows the third reich did not support women soliders.


I'll keep coming if you want me to.

[JackBeck]

130. I've never once stated my sexuality so I don't know why you think

I'm feeling attacked.

You pulled a number out of nowhere. And then you backtracked to find any possible information to support something that you didn't have any facts to support. And then when you did the research to try and support this number that you can't admit that you pulled from out of nowhere, you still couldn't find anything to nail down your numbers.

Dude, still waiting for the research that you said you'd do when you concluded that these kids would be messed up.

[Solon]

326. Those are examples of how male-run governments restrict women

and many still do, to this day, forbidding from being soldiers or warriors.

Fortunately, this hasn't historically been true, at least in different times in history, I guess some nations from the past just didn't have the hangups we have created since then.

Where the Scythians come from, and which racial stock they were, are hotly debated--sometimes in the international courts--even to this day. They were most likely from the Altai region, or perhaps from an area slightly west of it. Buried and subsequently frozen Scythians found in places such as the Pazyryk kurgans show some people with strong Mongolian features, and others who were blond and had quite European-looking faces. "Genes from ancient tissue are compared with genes from modern-day groups. Research with tissue from a number of burials suggests that the Pazyryks were ethnically diverse" (Nova).

We do know, however, that in one important respect, they were very different from the mounted archers who came after them: many of their best and most celebrated warriors--or at least given the most elaborate funerals--were women. It was almost certainly these Scythian warrioresses who inspired the Greek depictions of the Amazons. Herodotus wrote that "No Scythian woman may marry until she has killed a man of the enemy." These reports, and the evidence of Scythian and Saurmatian (a Scythian subgroup) art and craft were routinely dismissed until the latter part of the 20th century, when Scythian women were found buried in their riding clothing--identical to that of men--together with their bows, swords, and horses.

http://www.turanianhorse.org/scythians.html

So, even as far back as the Bronze age, women fought in wars, in some cases, in complete equality with men(50/50 armed forces). Here are many examples from Africa:

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2002&x=africanwarriors

In addition to this, Queen Boudica of the Iceni tribe(in Modern Great Britian) lead a revolt against the Roman Empire around 60 C.E. Her army was composed of both men and women, and many of the Celtic tribes of the British Isles also maintained the practice in slightly later ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

You present nations, modern nations, that by LAW forbid women equality in all things, and use them as an example of how women are different, that's a weak argument.

[Sapphocrat]

111. I suggest you learn how to back up your assertions with links.

Have you ever used the World Wide Web? It's really a fine resource.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

118. Sorry, but on DU, we don't consider it web citation unless you provide a

direct link to the actual online article. Merely stating that it comes from somewhere on the internet does not count as a link. Provide direct links to all your "citations" before you tell us that we need to read. Mmmm'kay?

[JackBeck]

119. You mentioned one.

crimelibrary.com

And you have yet to support your first assertion that these kids would be messed up. Still waiting for your sources.

[Sapphocrat]

120. I'm not about to slog through thousands of pages...

...on crimelibrary.com just because YOU are too lazy to provide a link.

Try again!

[foreigncorrespondent]

122. Really!

I haven't seen any links backing up your claims. Citing Web sites and actually providing the links to back up your claims are two very different things.

Perhaps you best go back to school and learn some manners. By the way, have fun learning!

[JackBeck]

123. There's this.

crimelibrary.com

Have fun piecing his argument together.

I was also told to "learn how to read". Such a weird directive since you have to know how to read to navigate the "internets" to begin with. Let alone type...

[foreigncorrespondent]

137. ROFLMAO

Yes, some people just don't realize how ridiculous their arguments are, huh?

[vincent_vega_lives]

388. You need internet links to prove

that Male violence is VASTLY more common than female violence? What world do you live in?

[fishwax]

48. "I was raised that men show restraint" -- your own words demonstrate that

it is a product of socialization. The notion that men shouldn't hit women is a product of upbringing. Men are raised to show restraint from hitting women because women are raised to be the "weaker" sex.

[foreigncorrespondent]

108. What would be optimal for you?

As for gays being parents, it's better than a shelter, but not optimal.

Placing kids in a fundamentalist xian home where the father believes in punishing kids with a strap and the mother is subservient?

[Sapphocrat]

109. Wow, what a piece of work.

I'll address only your most offensive points -- and it was hard to choose which were most offensive:

As for gays being parents, it's better than a shelter, but not optimal.

Well, gee, ain't that just swell of ya? Me and my kind's better than what you see in "Oliver Twist". Very generous of you.

Rosie O'Donnell are her wife = acceptable, but not optimal.

Butch Kimmerling and his wife = optimal.

So do I support gay adoption? yes.

Why? Because having queer parents is at least better than the gutter?

I was rasied that men show restraint. I guess not evryone was...

Oh, for the love of... You get the prize of the day for twisting words. Haruka said NO ONE should hit anyone else, REGARDLESS of sex. How difficult is that for you to understand?

Where I come from, PEOPLE show restraint.

BTW, I used to be a cross-dresser. But hormones took over and now I like my heels on girls and not me. I wasn't "forced" to stop, I simply found my place. Difference should be celebrated, not "neutralized".

Well, bully for you. Just don't try to convince anyone that regular shots of T in the ass are going to "correct" anyone's fashion sense -- which has NOTHING to do with sex OR gender.

[Hope springs eternal]

126. Sorry

I don't support children going to abusive parents, straight or gay. But I still believe kids need balance.


In my (real) world, the kids come before you getting offended. sorry.

[Misunderestimator]

128. In my (real) world, our child comes before your bigotry.

And he has plenty of balance, and plenty of love.

[Lasher]

229. Name calling is often used to discourage fair debate

This is not directed specifically at you.

I have seen the label, 'bigot' applied too many times today. Maybe you would be interested in a definition of the term:

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Anyone, and not just heterosexual caucasian males, can be a bigot. Maybe we all need to try to be a little more tolerant.

[Misunderestimator]

231. It is a bigoted thing to insinuate that gay parents are not as "optimal"

as straight parents... simply because they are gay. That's bigoted. Pointing it out is not name-calling. Yes, indeed, we all need to try to be a little more tolerant.

[Lasher]

235. Have you ever hear the issue brought up before?

OK let's say he's a bigot. This bigot claims gay parents are not a optimal as straight parents. Does this bigot offer any evidence to support his assertion? If not, have you challenged him to do so? Can you offer any evidence to refute this bigot's claim?

Or have you simply labeled him to dismiss his argument because you are utterly intolerant of his differing opinion? Are you being what you accuse him of? I highly value fair communication, but I don't think that's what's going on here.

OK I'm through preaching. You have every right to completely ignore me if that is your preference. I just wanted to make a point that I felt needed to be made. Like I said before, this is not directed specifically at you.

I'll have to check back with you later, as my elderly father is not doing well and I have to go next door to check on him.

[kiahzero]

236. If he cared to provide evidence, he would have.

And no refutation is necessary. If one claims that a difference is relevant, it is necessary for that person to provide evidence to support the claim.

[Lasher]

238. A point well taken

The burden of proof is on the individual who makes a claim. I often provide supporting documentation right up front when I want to make a statement. It's time consuming, though. I was just suggesting that it would promote better rapport and hopefully more common ground if he were engaged instead of labeled and cut off, even if that doesn't get any further than challenging him to back up his claim.

I don't want to come across as trying to tell you what to do, or to be adversarial. I'm just trying to communicate some thoughts that have occurred to me. These ideas are not unique to just this one exchange, I'm just using the 'gay parenting' exchange as an example.

[kiahzero]

239. Thing is, some claims are quite inflammatory

Rightly so. Asserting that having homosexual parents is only one step above being an orphan reeks of bigotry. Someone who really believed in equality would never make such a claim without having a significant amount of evidence to go along with it in order to display that the difference (is this case, the sex of the parents) is relevant. That lack of evidence is itself evidence of bad faith on the part of that particular poster.

[Lasher]

242. Another good point.

Some claims are quite inflammatory, even when individuals don't intend to be adversarial. This concept has a very broad relevance. I get upset sometimes, and I suppose everybody else does too.

I understand what you're saying and I think you get my point too. Thanks for sharing these views and for listening to mine.

Lasher

[vincent_vega_lives]

389. The optimal way to raise a child of either gender is with

both male and female role models in that child's life. No one is saying a child can't be raised sucessfully by gay parents, or even single parents (no one credible anyway) but it is important for children to have both genders positively represented in their lives early on even if it is not the parents per se.

That takes us to the second issue. Men and women are different, in more ways than just external appearance and internal plumbing. I cant belive I have to even say that. Biochemistry is a powerful influence on one's behavior, and how one interacts with their environment and others.

[Misunderestimator]

237. That would be like asking for evidence that black parents are not optimal.

Why on earth would I ask for "evidence" that I know does not exist? I have myself read enough to know that studies have shown that children benefit by being in loving households, no matter if they are straight or gay. I won't take the time to defend against a bigot to find such evidence to support my claim that his bigotry is what it is, when that person is posting on a progressive website and should know better.

Of course I am intolerant of bigotry. Why should I tolerate it?

[Lasher]

241. If someone were to suggest to me that about people of color...

I would not let the claim stand. Calling someone a racist or bigot and cutting them off is not the same as challenging such an assertion directly.

Well, maybe I would wait until tomorrow before I did that because I'm not going to get involved in any more flame wars today. I've noticed one message of mine in this string that I've had deleted by the moderators today, and I feel bad for having inconvenienced my hosts here at DU in that way. That sentiment has led to these thoughts I am sharing.

Would you would rather end up with an adversary who is resentful of you and hostile to values that are important to you, or would you rather leave someone as possibly a more enlightened individual who starts to realize they were wrong? I don't know, maybe you've had it and you just don't care but I would prefer the later to the former. This is why I believe we should ask for evidence that does not exist. Make them put up or shut up. Challenge the assertion instead of attacking the individual. Make your point.

I am not suggesting that bigotry should be tolerated. And I am not saying that it is always wrong to accuse someone of bigotry and run them out of town, so to speak. What I am saying is that the bigot label is being hauled out way too often here, and not just by you. This labeling is sometimes being used to dismiss arguments because people are intolerant of differing opinions like the one in question now, which is its self an act of bigotry according to the definition I have shared.

These are just my thoughts. I hope you think I have fully and fairly answered your questions.

[Misunderestimator]

243. Plenty of people have responded to this poster in this thread...

and there is no reason for me to feel responsible to educate him. He insulted me personally by insinuating that gay parents are not as optimal as straight parents. Being that I am a gay parent, I have every reason to call him on his bigotry. Other people can be more level-headed about it and search for evidence that has been given to people like this over and over again on this site.

HE is the one that should be offering evidence to support his assertion. I have no reason to offer any in my response to his insult.

[Lasher]

244. OK I'm picking up what you're laying down.

I didn't go back and check all the replies to him because I've already spent quite a bit of time elsewhere on this message thread. I feel better to know that he was engaged by others, hopefully with some positive result for someone. Tag teams work for me. Maybe you will be the more level-headed one one the next issue, or maybe I will.

Thanks for listening to my point, and for sharing your views with me.

Lasher

[TAPat]

248. Well said, and thank you -

We "homos" are always having to defend ourselves and our families - Geez, what a wonderful world...

[Jamastiene]

287. Using your own definintion

"Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

The word "preference" is still offensive to what now appears to be most of the GLBT people in this thread and you still haven't bothered to apologize. And you refuse to listen. I think you define yourself well.

[Sapphocrat]

132. Man, you're really good at this dodging and weaving thing.

"I don't support children going to abusive parents, straight or gay."

I have to hand it to you -- you're a master at re-framing the debate in a way that has nothing to do with anything anyone has just said to you, while completely ignoring any and every point that shoots down all of your assumptions, and amazing "statistics."

Where'd you learn that, anyway?

[Zhade]

160. Before this post, you never brought up abusive parents.

So why mention them now, except to infer that gay parents are abusive?

Your slip is showing, honey.

[Misunderestimator]

127. "gays being parents" is "better than a shelter" ... Holy Shit.

You add the "but not optimal"... to try to justify that incredible insult, because who could argue that it isn't exactly optimal, when our society judges gay people so harshly that by extention it is difficult as well for their children. I know of NO children that have "optimal" parents. Having gay parents is just one of the many differences between all children's parents. I would have MUCH preferred to have had two gay mothers or two gay fathers who loved me, than having the straight father that I had.

To say that it is "better than a shelter" you are implying that it is only marginally better than the child having NO parents, and that's extremely offensive and bigoted. It is immeasurably better than having neglectful parents, or parents who hit their children, or parents that don't care about their children's education, or parents that don't know what their children are doing, or a single straight parent who doesn't have time to send with their children. How dare you insinuate that a child having two loving gay parents is just a bit better than the child having none!

[Name removed]

149. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lastliberalintexas]

314. It's amazing to me as well

The idea that people would deny children loving homes is incredibly offensive, period. Whether the home is that of a couple or not, gay, straight, whatever religion, ethnicity, etc.- who cares? The best that we can ask is that the child is being raised in a loving, nurturing environment, and everything else is entirely immaterial.

Parents magazine ran a story not that long ago about a gay couple who had adopted a child one had found in the NYC subway, and then they ran just a small sampling of the hate mail they received in response. A loving, compassionate couple had given this child a safe and secure home for teh first time in his life, and the fundy nutcases were up in arms. I wonder where all of them were when this child was in such dire need? Just sickening.

[NMMNG]

200. Wow. Bigoted much?

:popcorn:

[TAPat]

230. You, Sir, owe my daughter an apology

for insinuating that she is just slightly better off than being an orphan or a kid who's been taken away from drug addicted parents.

We worry that although I am her birth mother and my partner was *fortunate* enough to adopt her own daughter, a child we conceived together, some BIGOTED ASSHOLE will come along and decide that our well adjusted daughter would be *better off* with some heterosexual family.

Thanks for reinforcing a fear that exists in so many loving, normal families everywhere, especially Missouri - well done...

Do us a favor and take a flying one, man...

[Jamastiene]

256. You daughter should NOT have to endure

being an orphan or living with drug addicted parents who will most likely abuse her. Some really bigoted comments have been posted in this thread. I'm getting to a point where I am scratching my head. Where is DU any more? This looks more like CU. Makes one wonder.
Again, your daughter is in a loving home and it's obvious from what you posted. Never mind the people who are so prejudiced that they'd rather see a kid live in an abusive home or in an orphanage. They are part of the problem, definitely not the solution.

[TAPat]

264. Thank you & Agreed -

Wonder where that troglodyte ran off to... ;)

[Jamastiene]

269. I don't know but I have seen

maybe two people in this thread who have repeatedly said rude, unsubstantiated, outright hateful things about gay people and the majority of the rest have tried time and time again to point out that those comments are offensive. I finally used ignore again for the first time in over a year. The majority of the people in this thread seem to have a levelheaded view on the issues. This has been one nightmare of a thread, hasn't it?

[readmoreoften]

272. YOU GUESS A CHILD IS BETTER OFF WITH ME THAN IN A SHELTER???

I'm not going to comment I don't want to get banned.

[vincent_vega_lives]

387. Perhaps that is part of it

If this statistic is true, then I think you need to look more into why males are often more violent. I would bet a significant portion of it has to do with raising boys in a "boys will be boys" mentality, instead of raising them in a more gender-neutral, peaceful manner.

But I don't think you need a social study to come to the conclusion that boys are more aggressive that girls. Testosterone has a lot to do with.

[JackBeck]

23. I'm done eating.

In order:

1) Your statement implies that lesbian couples raise children who are violent or delinquent.

2) Domestic violence is wrong, regardless of the gender. Domestic violence among gay men is highly underreported because of fear and stigma.

3) The OP isn't asserting that there are no differences between genders. The school is progressively allowing children to explore what gender identity for them by not ascribing certain roles and expectations. Of course, due to our physical differences, men and women will suffer from different ailments.

4) Where did you pull this number from?

[FreeState]

24. Studies

Id love to see the studies that show that a child needs a male and a female parent. Please do show us that one - and remember studies that show kids do better with both parents, like the ones the Christian right love to try and use against GLBT parents, only show that kids do better with two parents, not parents of both genders.

[Sinti]

26. You do realize that no one is trying to eliminate genders.

Though you've got to admit it would be damn funny to see someone advocating this concept. I don't see anything particularly new about what they're doing. When I was in kindergarten and first grade (this is 1971-72ish) there was one bathroom in the class and we all used it. They didn't say it was a "unisex" bathroom, it was just the bathroom - like you might use in your home. You raise your hand if you need to and the teacher allows you to use it, one at a time please. We were not a backwoods, one room school, and not an old one either. They never, ever lined us up by gender or separated us out by gender. The children to some degree did this to themselves at recess, but not entirely, girls played football and boys played hopscotch.

This isn't some kind of TEOTWAWKI moment. It's sane and reasonable. Adults need to stop putting sexual identities on kids, they're kids. Yes, they're girls and boys, one of them stands up to pee, they may have different interests, but other than that there's nothing. As far as school is concerned their minds are equal little vessels to be filled.


Your questions create questions.
Why has youth violence/delinquency soared with the absence of the father

How many other factors have been looked at other than this "absent father" garbage? Have we looked at the amount of toxins (chemical additives) kids get in their food now, how much lead there is in the water in areas where there's an increase in violence, and how about our culture and the value we put on peacemaking and life in general? Beyond that, what does youth violence have to do with forcing gender roles on to kindergartners.

Why is it wrong to hit women?

In case you didn't get the memo, I think we've also decided it's also wrong to hit men. Spousal abuse happens on both sides of the gender line, and one is no more acceptable than the other.

Why should any research be put into pick an illness that affects women only.

We study diseases that affect people, it's not especially because they affect women and not men. that's like saying, "If race makes no difference why should we study sickle cell anemia?" to justify lining kids up by their race, you dig?

Without either one, we'd have serious issues.

Again, no one is trying to eliminate either men or women. They're just not trying to reinforce the commonly held stereotypes of each at very young ages. What's wrong with that?

[fishwax]

46. none of your questions indicate that gender is innate rather than taught

Even if your assertions are factually sound, they arne't really valid in this argument because they don't imply that gender is other than a social construct.

-If gender was of no consequence, why has youth violence/delinquency soared with the absence of the father? After all if mommy is mommy and daddy </sarcasm>

First, evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation. Further, I'm not sure I accept the assertion that youth violence/delinquency has increased. Crime rates rose in the 70s and 80s, but then fell in the 90s. Unless absent fathers came back to the nest in the 90s, then perhaps it isn't true that youth violence/delinquency soared with the absence of the father. And even there is correlation, I fail to see what gender has to do with it--other social conditions (income, etc.) seem much more likely to be related. I don't really understand the point of the second sentence.

-If gender is of no consequence, why is it wrong to hit women? (unless, you're enough of a creep that you do believe in men hitting women)

What your referring to is, of course, a social dictum, and does nothing to demonstrate that gender is innate. It's wrong to hit anyone, generally speaking, accept in cases of self defense or defending others.

-If there is truly no gender differences, why should any research be put into post-partum depression, breast cancer, or the myraid of other issues affecting women (and men).

I don't see the logic here--why wouldn't we seek to cure ailments and diseases, regardless of whether gender is taught or innate?

-99+% of all violence is done by males

I'm not sure the statistic is valid, but even if it is it fails to answer the question of whether the propensity towards violence/aggression would be innate in males or mroe frequently inscribed in males through the socialization process. If, as such a figure could indicate, men have a greater tendency to commit violence, it could still reflect either an innate violence in males (there's something wrong with men) or a problem with how gender is inscribed in the socialization of males (there's something wrong with men are raised).

I'm all for the celebration of differences as well, but the fact that there are undeniable physical differences between men and women doesn't mean that the various psychological/social differences aren't a product of gender training/socialization. Nor does it mean, as you suggest, that "eliminating genders messes kids up." I think imposing and calcifying genders messes kids up.

[Hope springs eternal]

76. more things to chew on

"First, evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation. Further, I'm not sure I accept the assertion that youth violence/delinquency has increased. Crime rates rose in the 70s and 80s, but then fell in the 90s. Unless absent fathers came back to the nest in the 90s, then perhaps it isn't true that youth violence/delinquency soared with the absence of the father. And even there is correlation, I fail to see what gender has to do with it--other social conditions (income, etc.) seem much more likely to be related. I don't really understand the point of the second sentence. "


So you support broken homes?

Your assertion can also be explained by sheer demographics (70's/80's was when the boomers and gen X came on line. In fact, the highest rates of gun deaths were during GHWB's regin, and that was gen x, the first "broken home" generation, became young adults. In fact, if I can find it, the bubble of gen Y is reaching violence age (18-24), and lo and behold! The murder rate rose 5% last year (FBI.gov) and it's skyrocketing this year as well). Hell, if you read "freakonomics", you could say abortion is the cause of a lot of the decline.


But let's play the game a little bit. Poverty hovered around 20-25% from the 1900's to the mid 60's. Once LBJ gave us the
"great society", poverty cut itself in half to 12-13%. Yet, crime statistics in many cases doubled during the 1960's (NYC in particular recorded less homicides in 2005 than it did in 1965, which was still double than reported in 1955). Why is it that impoverished inner-city minority communites have higher rates of gun crime than impoverished rural white america? Could it be that the inner city has been raveged by broken homes? Maybe.

What else could it be? if it's race, then explain why UK's minorites have lower gun crime. If it's poverty, explain why India has low crime, if it's culture, why does Germany, whose history is drenched in blood (not just WWII), have low crime rates.






I, for one, miss out on having a father figure in my life and wish I had two parents. Many other kids in my situation have told me they feel the same way...so no, I'm not pulling shit from my ass. Face it, sometimes "family values" do rock.....

[Jamastiene]

90. Then you are suggesting that generation x is to blame for

the vast majority of the violence? That is basically what GHWB said too. We generation x slackers are the cause of all the problems in the world.

I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me.

[fishwax]

110. well, that's some great sound and fury, but it still doesn't support your

assertions.

So you support broken homes?

Huh? Where did you get that?

Your assertion can also be explained by sheer demographics (70's/80's was when the boomers and gen X came on line. In fact, the highest rates of gun deaths were during GHWB's regin, and that was gen x, the first "broken home" generation, became young adults. In fact, if I can find it, the bubble of gen Y is reaching violence age (18-24), and lo and behold! The murder rate rose 5% last year (FBI.gov) and it's skyrocketing this year as well). Hell, if you read "freakonomics", you could say abortion is the cause of a lot of the decline.

But let's play the game a little bit. Poverty hovered around 20-25% from the 1900's to the mid 60's. Once LBJ gave us the
"great society", poverty cut itself in half to 12-13%. Yet, crime statistics in many cases doubled during the 1960's (NYC in particular recorded less homicides in 2005 than it did in 1965, which was still double than reported in 1955).

I'm not sure I buy your poverty statistics, but they may be right--either way, I don't see how it's particularly relevant. None of this shows that broken homes cause youth violence. But even if we play along and pretend that it does, that still doesn't mean that the reason broken homes cause violence is because of gender confusion or insufficient attention to gender or not having two genders present for parenting duties, or any such thing.

This seems a rather silly game that you've divised. On what basis do you make the claim that the incidence of "broken homes" is the defining difference for the various crime rates between the 50s and today or between the U.S. and other countries? There are a myriad of other differences one could point to.

Why is it that impoverished inner-city minority communites have higher rates of gun crime than impoverished rural white america? Could it be that the inner city has been raveged by broken homes? Maybe.

Are divorce rates higher in the city than in the country? I don't know. Even if they are, though, there are any number of factors one could look to--an underclass created by centuries of institutionalized racism, the greater population density, and greater access to more and deadlier weapons, for instance. Same goes for the countries that you mention--it's easier to get guns in NYC than in all of those places, for instance.

Besides, countries like Canada and the scandinavian countries have fairly high divorce rates but much lower rates of gun violence than we do.

[Sapphocrat]

112. I can explain why "why UK's minorites have lower gun crime".

EVERYBODY has "lower gun crime" in the U.K. because handguns are BANNED in the U.K.

Ditto Australia. Gun crime plummeted the moment they took everybody's handguns away.

Hulllllloooo!

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

191. Really?

Care to back up that claim with facts. Why don't you prove to me why my partner is well know around DU for being a liar? I fucking dare ya!

[Sapphocrat]

198. Did I see what I thought I saw, before it disappeared?

T Town Jake (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-28-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #112
190. That assertion is, of course, a lie...
...but you're well known for that here at DU (lying), so no surprise.

Carry on.

Would you care to back that up, "Jake"?

[foreigncorrespondent]

286. Hmmmm...

...I hear crickets, can you?

Probably gone back down to the gungeon to call others liars down there now!

[Jamastiene]

288. And still no links to back up overly exaggerated claims

and still no apology from the one who made the "preference" comment even after DU'er after DU'er pointed out why that was offensive in a very big way. Some people... :banghead:

[lastliberalintexas]

315. Ahem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1992780&mesg_id=1992976


Physician, heal thyself. :)

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lastliberalintexas]

316. Benchley was finally banned?

Wow. Bout damn time.

[Name removed]

364. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sapphocrat]

325. Thanks, Zhade...

As you can no doubt imagine, I went through the roof when I saw that. I've been called a lot of things on DU, and a lot of them may even be accurate - LOL - but "liar"...?!

After collecting myself (thanks to foreigncorrespondent talking me down), I did a little archive-reading, and now I understand exactly what, ah... triggered that post. It seems some folks go a little -- oh, shall we say "ballistic"? -- the moment anyone even mentions banning handguns.

As if I wanted to. See, here's the real irony: While I'm 100% in favor of sane gun control (registration, background checks, and waiting periods), I'm the last person in the U.S. who would ever want to ban handguns -- I'm a gun owner (and collectible-firearms owner)!

Which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread -- I'm just still shaking my head over the way some things come totally out of left field.


P.S. Hear that, "fans"? I might have listened had anyone presented a calm, logical rebuttal (complete with links) to my assessment of handgun bans in the U.K. and Australia. Now, I just remember why I don't associate with other gun owners -- and I'm all the more glad I finally convinced my father to stop hunting, and rescind his life membership in the NRA. Sad, too, since I'm actually on your side.

[T Town Jake]

380. Reflection says: my (over) reaction to your handgun ban post was wrong...

...and I apologize. Sincerely.

That's all.

[vincent_vega_lives]

390. Not really

It's more of a crime culture thing rather than any law that has kept gun crime low in the UK. Criminals haven't felt they NEEDED a gun to be successful. That is changing now and despite the ban, gun crime is on the steady rise in the UK due to criminal gangs perceptions that they need guns to survive.

But this is off topic.

[Jamastiene]

69. For the record, breast cancer affects men too.

Therefore, it is not a "women only" disease.

Anatomy 101 should settle some of your qualms. I cannot go into deep details (rules), but men and women are more alike than you may think anatomically.

[jobycom]

104. Men can have post-partum depression, too

There is a hormonal aspect to PPD, but there is also more. I know this because as a male who raised my kids, I went through it. Until recently I was told that was impossible, but recent studies have proven it--much of what has been blamed on hormones is the result of the emotional ad physical stress of dealing with a newborn, from interrupted sleep and eating habits to extreme fear of hurting the child. Since women are usually the ones raising the child, they are affected more than men. And there is a hormonal change that men don't go through, obviously, but how much that plays in PPD is still debated. Some, for sure. But apparently not all.

I went through it, my wife, who returned to work two weeks after giving birth, never did. She was happy to get out of the house and away from the stress, actually. Then again, she never went through morning sickness with our first child, either, and seemed to suffer fewer physical side effects than many women. I'll never forget, when the nurses left the room to clean up our baby, my wife said she had to go the bathroom, got out of bed and went. The nurse practitioner walked back in and screamed "Where is she?" I pointed to the bathroom. She said "She can't do that!" My wife walked back out about that time, walked to the bed, climbed back in, and went to sleep. So maybe the lack of PPD in her had to do with other factors.

[Jamastiene]

152. I am not sure about the scientific facts, but

depression in general tends to be unisex and what you point out about the stress makes sense. I thought about adding that men sometimes get PPD, but I honestly only guessed that it was possible. The breast cancer part I learned years ago to be fact.

I believe you are right. There are times when a man will get morning sickness and the woman does not. I know that from first hand experience. My ex-boss' husband got her morning sickness and there were some people discussing it that day at work. Apparently, it is not that rare either from what they were saying.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

154. Breast cancer knows no gender.Males w/BRCA genetic mutations get it too...

Once they find out that they do have the mutation, they are no longer afforded the luxury of thinking about breast cancer as a "women's disease." Their lives are changed in many ways if the mutation is found:

Prophylactic screening is needed- and unlike with women and a yearly mammogram under some insurance plans, not only may their screening not be automatically covered, Many doctors STILL lack the knowledge that this is even necessary for men with hereditary BRCA mutations, and therefore would not recommend any further screening for their patient. Also, in setting up appointments for advanced screening procedures, some men are denied access (either through insurance, or in the facility where the screening would take place. It's certainly not common for a man to seek repeated monitoring for this cancer. Uniformed well- meaning medical personnel may downplay this course of action... Especially if the man does not want to disclose their genetic status. (Not extremely unlike how younger women who have not been tested for the genetic mutation are treated if they desire screenings for breast caner, knowing that it runs in the family...)


Then there's the additional stigma for men who do deal personally with this disease. Also, there is less medical research on men's breast cancer- what works/what doesn't...and the "n" used in study design may be statistically insignificant due to the smaller pool of men that the researchers had to draw from. If there are smaller numbers of affected individuals, it may be harder to recruit participants so that researchers can gain a better understanding of of the varied experiences that men who have had breast cancer had to face. In addition, due to the low numbers recruited- especially at centers where a case of male breast cancer may never have presented prior to that one case- I'd be willing to hypothesize that those patients may be less willing to participate in a study, (even knowing intrinsically that it is completely confidential, and the results will be aggregated, and not used to say "Joe Smith reports that (x, y, z)" ,than men who undergo treatment in a facility that has had prior experience with male breast cancer. I would further wager that if there was a peer group at a treatment center= other men facing breast cancer, they may be more willing to participate in social research, as they would have some emotional support from fellow patients at the conclusion of the interview, questionnaire, or other form of study that was recruiting patients with male breast cancer- and despite popular thought that breast cancer solely affects women- they would know that others were going through similar medical issues.


---
Gosh-- I meant to write just 2 or 3 sentences. :blush:

[Jamastiene]

155. It's good that you did explain it better.

Don't worry about how many sentences it took. It's the truth and truth is what we need always. :pals:

It IS a shame that men do not get the same treatment hope for their breast cancer based on gender. It is a sad state of affairs when ignorance gets in the way of someone's medical care and stigma adds to the bad news of having it. It is astonishing how many people do not know that men can get it too.

[jobycom]

100. You didn't read my post all the way

I said there is no difference between genders other than physical. That answers most of your points quite nicely, and still proves mine.

Except your first point, which is just propoganda you've bought into. Violence and youth delinquency does not soar with the absence of fathers if all other aspects of life are kept even. Often when a father leaves it destroys the family's finances, forces the mother into difficult working conditions that leave her less time with the kids, and leaves the kids with only one person to deal with them. Families with two adult women--whether lovers or mother/granddaughters or whatever--do not show any increases in delinquency.

The rest of your points--it's wrong to hit anyone, especially when the person is physically smaller and legally entertwined with you. Even so, most of that problem is cultural stereotype--men think they own women, many women are taught to trust a mate for protection and don't know what to do when the mate is the aggressor.

As for female medicine--again, physiological. Read my first post again.

99% of violence done by males--again, cultural.

Nice of you to be for women doctors and such. I'm sure women will appreciate your generosity.

[Hope springs eternal]

129. why then?

99% of violence done by males--again, cultural.

So why are males selected. Why does this cut across all cultures. Why do young boys make toy guns?


You're right, parents spend their whole lives conditioning children...</sarcasm>


Tell me this, are gay kids conditioned to be gay. Then in that case, we don't need GLBT rights then...

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

136. and still nothing to support the original assertion

about how "eliminating genders messes up kids." :eyes: No surprise there, I suppose ...

[pinto]

141. You may not need them, but we do.

:hi:

[jobycom]

162. This would be easier if you had been conditioned to write clearly.

I can't answer point by point because I'm not sure what your points are. Here is my point: personality begins being formed in infancy. By about age four many of the basic patterns are set. If a child is taught that being a girl means being weak, dumb, flowery, etc, she will try to be that way. That's conditioning, and it doesn't have to be done for a child's entire life to affect a child's entire life. If she isn't taught to be that way, she won't. Same with boys. I can't figure out what you are trying to say with the rest of the words you splattered into that post.

As for toy guns, both boys and girls play with toy guns. I'm sure there are many reasons for this, but as it is hardly gender-specific, the reasons don't relate to this discussion.

As for being gay or lesbian, as I stated way back up there, that has nothing to do with gender stereotypes, so I'm not sure why you bring it up, either.

You seem very young. I'm glad you are getting involved in politics early on. Keep it up.

[Lasher]

246. I believe personality begins forming before birth.

I base this belief on observing newborns, whose behavior is quite different.

[CrushTheDLC]

143. Flying Spaghetti Monster?

What the hell does that mean?

[JackBeck]

146. It's all good.

It's the godless wonder that we worship here in Progressive-ville.

[Lasher]

245. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Here ya go: http://www.venganza.org/

[Zhade]

159. "the fact is" - fact? No. Unproven assertion on your part? Yes.

1) single-parent home, duh.

2) it's wrong for either gender to hit each other.

3) people aren't saying there are no physical gender differences, so your strawman is pointless.

4) Evidence?

[jobycom]

94. None of your points hold water

What I did wasn't social engineering because I didn't condition my kid one way or the other, I let her develop her own ideas.

There are physiological reasons for different genders, but the social and cultural trappings are artificial.

And homosexuality and gender stereotypes are two different things, despite the goofy images the media tries to force on us. Most gay people don't act like they are really the opposite gender in drag, except on television. Some do, but that's a style issue, it has nothing to do with sexuality.

[JackBeck]

234. Hi, Hope springs eternal!

Have you found those studies yet backing up your claim that "eliminating genders messes kids up, period"?

Thanks, I've been waiting.

[Ms. Toad]

75. With girls you don't even need neutral dress...

My personal experience (which matched with my informal surveys of other parents of small children) is that unless you make gender unmistakably obvious (large pink frilly bows pasted on nearly bald heads, dressed in layers of petticoats) people will address small children as male.

When she was younger, my daughter always looked very feminine (petite bone structure, liked feminine clothing in pinks and lavenders, carried "girls'" toys, etc.). Until she was about 4 was assumed to be male by new acquaintances. Her cousin (male) was also always assumed to be male. Most parents of boys I spoke with reported that pretty much everyone "knew" that their child was a boy; most parents of girls I spoke with reported frequently having to correct gender references. (The question I asked, to avoid biasing my informal study too much, was are strangers usually correct when they guess your child's gender?)

My theory is that people (probably unconsciously) don't want to offend the parents of boys by referring to them as girls.

[Hope springs eternal]

83. That's not cool

"My theory is that people (probably unconsciously) don't want to offend the parents of boys by referring to them as girls."

If it offends the parents, then they have a problem. Being a girl is nothing to be ashamed of.


Although, after a certain point, guys don't like that...

[jobycom]

95. That's pretty much what I meant by neutral dress.

I agree with you, just not putting pink, frilly bows and flowery dresses was all it took. My daughter wore shorts, pants, shirts. Nothing that screamed "girl" or "boy."

Another reason people assume a child is a boy unless she is dressed in bows and skirts is that they think all children are boys until they learn otherwise. It's like boys are the standard, girls are the variant, thus a child has to be proven a girl or its a boy.

[cgrindley]

212. All fine and well unless you know anything about education

But then again, I guess no one gives a shit about boys anymore.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

216. Care to enlighten?

Also, I didn't see anything about Jobycom's post to suggest that he didn't "give a shit about boys anymore." He was simply relaying the experience he's personally had with his daughters.

[SmokingJacket]

11. Before puberty, there's no reason to treat kids differently based on

gender.

SOME girls like to be girly, and SOME boys like trucks, sports, etc., but not all of them.

I was a girl who had no interest in makeup, princesses, and the color pink. It had nothing to do with my sexual orientation, which is straight. I hated being a girl, because the expectation was that I should be cute and flirty, which I wasn't.

I have two boys who have no interest in cars or sports.

Why not just treat them like "kids" and let them pick their own interests and behavior?

[Kickoutthejams23]

12. Hear Hear.

I'm afraid the focus on the school on gender roles and sexuality at such a young age is a bit counter productive.

Let kids be kids.

And as some parents have attested it seems some of this stuff is hardwired into the kids despite our most honorable intentions.

[Iris]

251. I don't think we can assume anything is hardwired given the culture

we live in. In now starts in the womb - people find out the sex of the child and then everyone acts accordingly.

[alarimer]

25. I was just like that too

It is hard fitting in sometimes (or was when I was in school). I remember requesting toy cars for Christmas presents. Or things like Legos. I probably had Barbies too, in my relatives misguided efforts to make me more "girly". I never had a boyfriend until well after college (but then I was a very serious student and extremely introverted). Most guys now that are my age are more appreciative of the fact that I am not "high maintenance" so I think my lack of relationship experience has more to do with personality than appearance. And of course being "non-girly" (for lack of a better word) serves me well in my work now. I spend lots of time out on the water, dealing with "icky, slimy" fish. Some guys are surprised (especially the redneck fools I encounter during creel surveys) at my willingness to handle dead fish. Somehow I am supposed to find it gross because I am female?? I don't know. If I were a doctor I wouldn't faint at the sight of blood or else I would be a lousy doctor.

So I think it is important to let kids be kids, whatever they are and not direct them in a particular direction. My nephew, when he was 4 or 5, would play dress-up with his sister who is a year younger, including wearing my sister's cast-off clothes and shoes. My sister didn't make a big deal of it- it is just kids playing after all but my nephew was terrified that his dad would find out and he would get in trouble. Sad, really.

[WindRavenX]

27. my experience as well

I was pressured into being a girly girl when all I wanted to do was play baseball with the boys :(

[ulysses]

30. precisely. n/t

[Cleita]

15. I think it could be a healthy thing.

When I was a kid and gender was strictly divided, I knew little boys who wanted to play with our dolls in secret, and some little girls wanted to play with boy's toys. I don't think it makes much difference until they enter puberty. I think they did a thing about this on the old Roseanne show where the youngest, a boy, wanted to put on a dress and be a witch for Halloween.

[NotGivingUp]

18. I'm so glad to see most of the replies here......

I hate the little boxes that we are all put in from the day we're born. I believe it has caused so many problems in people's lives.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. We had unisex bathrooms in kindergarten

We weren't trusted to walk down the hallway by ourselves to use the real bathroom, so we had a unisex one right next to the classroom.

[WindRavenX]

84. how come you didn't turn gay then?

I mean, unisex bathrooms-- come on! :sarcasm:

[CrushTheDLC]

151. Don't all kindergarten classrooms have an attached bathroom?

Call it "unisex" if you want but at the time I just thought of it as one bathroom. And considering I was in kindergarten around 1972, it's a wonder that secular humanist commie liberal public system didn't turn me into a miniature David Bowie.

Come to think of it, that would have been kinda cool :evilgrin:

[Nikia]

32. I agree with most of the replies here

Let children be who they are. If gender is so naturual, heavy indoctorination of small children wouldn't be necessary anyway. It will help children be more tolerant of each other too, regardless of gender.

[AlCzervik]

54. well said! a little tolerance would go a long way.

[WindRavenX]

57. some of the replies in this thread shock me

:cry:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

59. Yes, it's sad that on DU someone could accuse me

of wanting to indoctrinate children into my lifestyle.

[WindRavenX]

61. Because we all know...

it's a CHOICE :sarcasm:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

65. Yep, I made this choice because I thought adding a little bit of

persecution would be a nice addition to my life.

[WindRavenX]

67. You're just one of those weepy "let's play the victim" queers, aren't you?

:sarcasm:

Seriously, holy god, I am on the Gay Leadership Counsel at my ultra conservative campus, and I have heard the EXACT SAME CRAP from the homophobes on campus as I have reading this thread. On DU. That's fucked up.

[JackBeck]

68. Wait, I thought it was a "preference".

Silly haruka3_2000. Remeber, we prefer to be gay.

[Jamastiene]

74. I am appalled too.

Obviously, we GLBT people have to suffer persecution and allegations of "converting" children here too. This is truly a sad day for DU. I wish I hadn't seen this garbage.

[bluestateguy]

72. To acknowledge that boys and girls are different is not sexist

It's sexist to treat boys and girls unequally, but acknowledging differences between boys and girls is not by itself a sexist act.

Unisex bathrooms for kids? Bad, bad idea.

[WindRavenX]

73. how are they not acknowleding differences?

They are allowing for kids to be kids instead of having them fit into an overly simplified gender binary system.

[bluestateguy]

78. "overly simplified gender binary system"?

Uh, I must have missed the academic conference where that terminology was invented.

[WindRavenX]

82. Gender binary system:

Analogous to: black and white. No grey area.

In other words, you are either male or female and all your behavior must fit into those two limited catagories.

Human beings are beyond this. And making kids fit into those boxes is equally ridiculous. You know of girls who play with guns and soldier toys, and of boys who play with barbies. Both examples would be ridiculed in this society because they do not fit the difinition of being "feminine" or "masculine". By eliminating these stupid rules, kids can just play what they want to play, regardless of gender.
So I fail how to see how this downplays the differences-- no one is saying someone must be something they aren't. Kids can just be kids.

I wish it was the same for adults.

[Jamastiene]

88. In decimal numbers, we have the numbers

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 9 to make up numbers as we count.

In binary numbers, there are only 2 numbers; 0 and 1.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jamastiene]

91. Well said and a hearty welcome to DU.

:hi:

I agree that no one totally fits into that binary system. We have so many more traits than two very strictly defined "roles" to play. That is just it with the idea of gender "roles." People have to "act" to stuff themselves into the tiny little stereotype of who they think they are supposed to be.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

115. Great post! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[CrushTheDLC]

153. The typical kindergarten bathroom is one toilet and one sink

Occupied by one child at a time. So what goddamn difference can it possibly make if it has a little boy sign or a little girl sign next to it.

I know of restaraunts here in town which only have one restroom (designed for single occupancy). Some of them are even owned by Republicans, I would imagine. Are they somehow "recruiting" for the big bad scary homosexuals as well? Or are they just too fucking cheap to put in proper restrooms?

[Odin2005]

92. I know I'll be flamed for not dittoing Blank-Slatist notions, but...

...not all gender roles are cultural, many are biological. There was a show on the Discovery Channel a couple years ago called Science of the Sexes. The program shows many things where the behavioral differences are biological, results of differences in brain development in the womb and during puberty.

[WindRavenX]

101. I agree to an extent

But clearly, there is a tremendous amount of cultural influence in behavior and what we deem to be "correct" behavior.

[Sapphocrat]

113. You won't get flamed by me.

Of course some aspects of behavior are biological in origin. Take away a guy's testosterone, and he starts weeping uncontrollably at State Farm commercials... Yes, I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

117. I agree to an extent but...

the point is not trying to go against what some may be biologically predisposed to, but rather just allowing children to be who they want to be rather than having social constructs dictate that. Some kids will stick to those constructs naturally. Some will blur the lines. Personally, I feel it's okay either way, but the kids that blur the lines should be able to freely do so and that is what this school is trying to achieve.

[Sapphocrat]

121. That's it.

Much better answer than mine. Exactly that. :)

[REP]

171. "Blank Slate" is a Load Of Shit

I hope John Money is burning in hell.

[AlienGirl]

324. Yes, which is why sometimes the brain is "sexed" differently from the body

Which is why transsexual kids can't just be "taught" to be the gender people expect them to be based on the appearance of their external genitalia.

Tucker

[WernhamHogg]

165. This is great news for the kids in that school!

This is my story: I am a straight woman. When I was a kid (1980's), I had a lot of friends who were boys and and a lot of friends who were
girls. I loved to play "mommy" to my Cabbage Patch Kid and I also loved to watch/play Voltron. I hated trucks, cars and anything mechanical, but I also hated Barbi. I loved to play baseball with my friends who were boys and I also loved to play "house" with my friends who were girls. I had very short hair for a couple of years (my choice, but my mom fully supported me) and I hated dresses. As I got older, I still enjoy watching sports and I usually wear clothes that are gender neutral (jeans/t-shirts). I don't have any interested in Popular Mechanic OR any of the fashion magazines. I don't normally wear any make-up, dresses or skirts, however I LOVE special occasions (such as weddings) when my husband and I get all dressed up (hubby in a suit, me in a dress, makeup, etc) and go out.

I attended Catholic schools for grades 1-8 and I specifically remember being 7 years old and being forced (yes, FORCED) to wear the "girl Pilgrim" costume at school for some kind of Thanksgiving program. I desperately wanted to wear the "boy Pilgrim" costume. I remember being VERY upset by having them force me into the "girl" costume. This wasn't some "ideology" that my mom or anyone else forced on me (my mom, a single working mother, was much more concerned with raising my brother and I to be good people who are happy than concerned with whether or not my brother and I fit into society's stereotypes for our particular sex). I didn't try to convince any other kids that they also should want to wear the outfit assigned to the opposite sex. I just knew that *I* was VERY uncomfortable being forced to wear the "girl" outfit. A sympathetic parent of a classmate who was supervising this project made my case for me to the teacher and the teacher (reluctantly) allowed me to finally wear the "boys" outfit. None of the other kids in the class cared that I was dressed differently than the other girls and as far as I know, none of the other parents cared either. The only one who really cared was the adult teacher.

[MistressAstrid]

183. When is it OK for boys to be girls, and girls to be boys?

I think this is most progressive and highly enlightened. As m to f transsexual who had to overcome a lot of negative emotional baggage acquired in early childhood, I think this kind of program will allow children to develop with less rigid ideas of gender stereotyping which can only promote greater tolerance and understanding generally

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

188. Welcome to DU!

Great 1st post!

:hi:

[The Dude_ Man]

189. Hey, Man

I have, like, an opinion, man, but will wait till I have, like, more posts before I express it and such.

Had to get a first one sometime.:P

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

190. She's not a man.

So what's your opinion? Are you scared to get in trouble on your first post? Saving the real trolling for later? Otherwise, why wouldn't you express it now.

[The Dude_ Man]

196. Well that was nice

I try and be friendly in my first post to the forum and I get called a troll.

Anyway, my opinion is that anytime people get together and try and do what's best for "the kids", they usually end up doing more harm than good.

Oh, and I wasn't calling anyone specifically a man. I use my "mans" in very broad non-specific terms. Gender neutral, if you will.

Man...

:)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

197. How can harm be caused by just letting kids be who they want to be?

:shrug:

[The Dude_ Man]

202. Quoted from the first post:

"We had to ask ourselves, what is gender for young children?"

They shouldn't be asking themselves anything. As you say, just let the kids be kids and quit worrying about it so much. I think teachers and administrators get bored and just like to come up with new "ideas".

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

204. Yes, but by eliminating the gender segregation, they're actually

allowing the kids to just be their natural kid selves. If a boy wants to play with dolls, then that's cool and if a girl wants to go play football, then that's cool as well. The school I went to was very gender segregated and it sucked for anyone that wasn't stereotypically boy or girl. This school is just letting the kids be whomever, instead of trying to force them into stereotyped behavior.

[The Dude_ Man]

205. Not saying I disagree

but what happens when some of the boys start picking on the few boys who want to play with dolls?

I think it may be a noble cause, just not sure if its practical. Teachers won't always be around to keep things in order and discipline the bullies.

Ultimately though, I don't think you see any boys playing with dolls due to peer pressure. It will be fellow kids that won't let other kids, just be themselves. That's the way it always was when I was in school and I doubt much has changed.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

206. According to the article this is a liberal private school in SF area.

I have a feeling the majority of these kids are taught both at school and home that it's okay for boys to play with dolls.

[The Dude_ Man]

207. apparently not

if they are just now starting with the gender desegregation.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

208. Sorry, but that is extremely progressive.

I suggest reading the whole article if you haven't done so.

[Zhade]

310. Welcome to DU!

I love transpeople - I find them fascinating, in a wonderfully diverse way.

There is still some bigotry at DU, as can be seen, but there are also people to back you up. Cheers!

:toast:

[NMMNG]

194. This will not do!

Allowing children to be themselves rather than cramming them into strictly defined gender roles? Simply unacceptable! It can lead to nothing but homosexuality and the utter breakdown of American society! :sarcasm:

[NuttyFluffers]

214. This is Wonderful News! Children Don't Need Adult Baggage So Early.

let them find their own way; they'll find their way soon enough because they grow up so fast. and i really feel the name "unisex" bathroom is just a shit-stirring misnomer for "generic private bathroom," which was quite common for the younger grades in schools i went to. better to have the little kids away from the older kids -- and have the bathroom close by because young children recently potty trained can be prone to accidents. this is great, it creates a greater sense of community because there's less externally imposed dividing lines. let the kids have fun their own way.

[LWolf]

228. Hmm.

<snip>

Admissions director Flo Hodes is even a little apologetic that she still balances classes by gender.

I wish we could balance my class by gender. Interestingly, I worked 4 years in a row with 2/3 boys and 1/3 girls. High energy, had to keep everything moving, and my colleagues wondered how I managed it.

I'm entering my 2nd year now with 2/3 girls and 1/3 boys. Adolescent girls. This is not a great scenario. If I had to be out of balance, I'd take the boys over the girls; all the issues then are about excess energy and physical movement, which is much easier to address than social/emotional issues, self-esteem issues, social competition to establish pecking order, friendships in crises, and fighting over the too-few boys.

Gender differences are not just cultural. They are biological as well, and a balance of genders, and gender energies, helps to create the most productive environment in the classroom and the community.

[Kailassa]

336. The best year I had in school was year 10,

when I was one of only 3 girls in a class of 33. It was a class for delinquents, and I was considered the worst. I loved being in a guys class, and really had a ball that year. Of course in the first 15 minutes I'd asserted myself and taken over control of the class. The guys would do anything I said because I stopped any teachers treating them without respect. We taught and supported each other, and the only behaviour issues that year were when teachers would not behave themselves.

I understand why "balance" can be good, but other combinations can be more interesting.

[LWolf]

338. Pardon me if I don't

think that a student "taking over control of the class" is the healthiest scenario for a class! I also don't think disrespect is ok from any party, teacher or student. I've had very few power plays in my room over the years; students don't have to "assert" themselves to establish their personal power or to establish just who is going to be alpha in the classroom. That's me. It's my job to establish and maintain the climate and the procedures. Part of my job is to understand something about my students' background, home and community environment, and current developmental level, and to make sure that policies, procedures, and instruction fit.

If you never had a teacher that empowered you to reach your potential without disrespect, I'm sorry.

[Kailassa]

360. Different things are appropriate in different situations.

I have had some wonderful teachers, and I have been a teacher.

The class I was in was considered to be dregs and no-hopers. Teachers hated teaching these kids, and the previous 3 years in high-school had left these kids with a belief that they were failures and would always be despised. I'd landed in it because trauma at home had left me stubborn and rebellious.

The class elected me form captain because of my bad reputation. With me as captain, the guys figured that year was going to be a real hoot, they could misbehave all they wanted. Then they started preparing tricks in the science room we were in to give the teacher a hard time. And I found a side of myself I'd never known before. I was on my feet telling them to behave before I realised what I was doing, and, to my amazement, they did what I said.

I had always had intense feelings on social justice issues, and indentified with any "underdog", so when bullying teachers tried things they'd got away with when we were younger, I'd lead the class into the school yard, and we'd conduct our own class for the rest of the session.

This was a little country high-school, btw, in an unpopular area, so we had quite a few teachers who were there as a punishment for having "misbehaved" at other schools. A favourite punishment, only used on black kids, was to put a metal bin over their heads and keep whacking it with a 3' woodaen ruler. I also saw teachers break those rulers over kid's heads and keep whacking them with the broken part. Terrible things were done, and no-one stopped it. I hope it couldn't happen these days, but this was the 60s.

It was not only in keeping the class well behaved and preventing the teachers bullying that I took over. I also organised clubs in various subjects, got the principal's permission to use classrooms during lunch-breaks for them, and the brighter students tutored the slower ones. I'm sure that, as a teacher, you are aware that bad behaviour in class often goes along with learning difficulties, and getting everyone competant in the basics made a huge difference to their self-esteem.

As a class, we were were proud of ourselves, and developed a real sense of identity. This reflected in areas outside the school too, and many kids took up new interests and went on to try things that they wouldn't have previously considered.

Of course I couldn't have done this on my own, it was the class that did it. I was just the right person at the right time to lead them, so they could show what they were really made of. All I did was have a momentary vision of what they could be, and they became that vision and supported each other.

[Kailassa]

361. School in my experience was a peg-board.

You were a good peg, who fitted neatly into your round hole,
or you were bad and had to be punished. The students background
was only considered relevant as a predictor of whether they
would be good or bad.

I qualified as a teacher in the early 70s and was one of a group of teachers lobbying the government and education department to change this attitude, to train teachers to understand kids better, to have smaller classes so they could, and to employ counselors in the schools.

You say: "Part of my job is to understand something about my students' background, home and community environment, and current developmental level, and to make sure that policies, procedures, and instruction fit."

That's so wonderful to hear. But the reason that is part of your job is that some of us oldies once saw the difference between how things were and how they should be. However there is no guarantee that such attitudes will automatically continue. Advances that have been made are being eroded by our governments, and they try to eliminate the middle class and reduce society to the elite and the slaves, and it is now up to people like yourself to fight to hang onto a caring attitude in education.

It is still all too easy for kids to slip between the cracks. Congrats for being one of the teachers who works to prevent that.

[LWolf]

368. I know that

what you describe has been present for a long time. I graduated from high school in '77, and I can honestly say that most of my teachers were great.

I wasn't really round or square. I came from the under-educated poor working class, was raised by a single parent, and was a latch-key kid before the term was coined. I went to 10 different schools K-12. I thrived with my teachers because I had a lively, curious mind and I loved learning. School was not a social haven for me, but I loved to think, to read, to explore, and I was perfectionist enough to love succeeding. Grades came easily: the one thing in my life that has not been hard.

When I began working in public education in 1983, many good things were happening. I've seen the erosion you refer to; it's been growing slowly and steadily for a long time. It took a jump in the early 90s, when the policies of the current administration were incubated at the state level in several states. Since the advent of the Bush administration, I wouldn't call it erosion any more. I'd call it an avalanche.

[Kailassa]

373. Books make good friends, don't they. ;-)

Even when not all teachers are good, having contact with one good one
can influence a kid for the rest of their life. The decreasing support
for teachers and their students make it tough, but without caring
teachers many kids would have no hope.

Hang in there.

:pals:

[LWolf]

381. Yes, they do!

You've made me think of this truth: when you ask people what they remember about school, whether they were in school recently or decades ago, they remember teachers first. Teachers before content, every time. The teachers they remember have a strong emotional "tag," either positive, or negative. That's a question we could all ask ourselves: How will our students remember us, and what kind of memories are we creating in our classrooms?

A good question to ponder in the days before they return. Official return, that is; many of my students have been checking in this last week to say hi, offer assistance, and, in the case of the new Freshmen, soak up some encouragement for their new high school adventure.

[Sparkly]

247. I think that's great.

I went to elementary school in a VERY very very old building, where there were actually separate stairways for girls and boys (engraved stone over each saying, "Girls," "Boys"). Some teachers actually used them that way, which we preferred so boys wouldn't look up our skirts. (Not only were we not allowed to wear pants, we were only allowed to wear shorts BENEATH our skirts on "gym days!" What on earth were they so afraid of?!?)

In kindergarten, there was a red tricycle in the classroom. I was DYING to ride it, but I never got a turn because the boys got priority. The teacher told me boys needed the bike, and kept insisting I play "house" with the other girls. It may seem silly, but it's stuck with me all this time.

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

278. Awesome.... Actually Touche

I love seeing the fundi's heads pop. Ignorant fools are trapped in their world of moral superiority. Sad to see the Christian Coalition vaporize the way it has. Kinda creepy like a fascist funded cult, to keep their minions brainwashed enough to deny any and all information that contraducts their point of view.

"Get them up against a wall..."
- Pink Floyd, The Wall

[blonndee]

296. For some reason some modified Motley Crue lyrics come to mind

It's the same old, same old SITUATION
It's the same old, same old "SONG AND GAME."

This technique and the way this thread has played out seems very familiar and oddly SOP. Just saying.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

297. What is "SOP?" nt

[blonndee]

300. Standard Operating Procedure. n/t

[TheWraith]

317. Why not just treat the kids like kids?

Does any of this really matter? Why not simply treat the kids like kids, rather than fucking with their heads over adult ideas about gender? Are the kids who are different really that numerous that you have to start treating EVERYBODY differently? Is there something so horribly wrong with, say, a girl who wrestles or a boy who dances that you have to start opening questions about their gender identity, questions that they don't even have a framework for let alone answers to? Just treat them all like kids, don't mess with their minds, and they'll be fine. Sheesh.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

318. Well, in actuality, that's exactly what the school is doing.

No kids are getting their heads fucked with about gender. It's only adults that are getting in a tizzy over it. As for the kids, they're just providing an environment in which the kids can act like whatever gender they want.

[Kurovski]

349. Whenever The Kinks are on the radio!!!

:bounce: :thumbsup:

[aikoaiko]

354. To no one in particular, but wasn't "orientation" on the offensive terms

...list for a while. Maybe I was just hanging out with too many hardcore activists.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

356. I never heard anyone consider "orientation" to be offensive. nt

[aikoaiko]

366. I can't find any INTERNET references, but a dictionary definition might

..show some of the reasons why orientation might not be a great word either.

o‧ri‧en‧ta‧tion  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=orientation&x=0&y=0

1. the act or process of orienting.
2. the state of being oriented.
3. an introduction, as to guide one in adjusting to new surroundings, employment, activity, or the like: New employees receive two days of orientation.
4. Psychology, Psychiatry. the ability to locate oneself in one's environment with reference to time, place, and people.
5. one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.
6. the ascertainment of one's true position, as in a novel situation, with respect to attitudes, judgments, etc.
7. Chemistry.
a. the relative positions of certain atoms or groups, especially in aromatic compounds.
b. the determination of the position of substituted atoms or groups in a compound.

I think the word orientation actually implies ones perception of self in the context of environment (especially #4), and doesn't really deal with the issue of choice or nonchoice.

I really doesn;t matter to me. I generally call people or refer to identity issues in the least offensive way. But on the other hand, as never had a problem thinking of myself as having a sexual preference either. I prefer to have sex with women. It never occurred to me that my use of preference implied any illegitimacy to my sexuality. I know the issues of "choice" are deeply ingrained in gay rights so I don't push it on anyone.

[Kailassa]

374. I prefer chocolate cake to doughnuts.

The implication of "prefer" is that the 2nd choice would be ok if the first one
was not available.

I would never say, unless being facetious, that I prefer chocolate to dog-shit.
(Should that be fecesious?)

Preference indicates a hierarchy of possible choices. There can only be a
hierarchy of choices if more than one choice can be acceptable to you.

If you are somewhat bisexual, your statement that you prefer sex with women
makes sense, as you would have sex with a man as a second preference. Of course
you could mean you prefer women to blow-up dolls, but the natural assumption
will be that you are comparing women with the opposite sex in that sentence.

[Sapphocrat]

376. I wish I'd said it that way!

Well put!

I take back everything I said about preferring to have sex with Johnny Depp over Ann Coulter, as Coulter really doesn't enter into the equation. So:

I would prefer to have sex with Johnny Depp instead of becoming celibate for the rest of my life, and I would choose to blow my brains out before ever having sex with Ann Coulter.

:D

[Kailassa]

377. And I'd prefer you blew away Ann Coulter

than blew Johnny Depp, you are less likely to catch something that way. ;-)

Your posts inspired me, that's why I had to add something of my own to this thread.

:pals:

[aikoaiko]

378. I'm not sure preference means the other choice is acceptable.

In many cases the second choice can be acceptable, but preferance can be exclusive.

There is nothing about the word preference that eliminates exclusivity.

But again, I'm not for forcing the phrase "sexual preference", I just don't see it as ideological unpure as some people.

[Kailassa]

379. It's not a choice if the other "choice" is unacceptable.

It's then a foregone conclusion.

[aikoaiko]

382. again, I don't think acceptability has anything to do with it.

In the behavioral sciences (i know, not always the friend to nonheterosexuals as it should have been), preference is a descriptive term of a pattern of behavior. Exclusive preference is not an oxymoron. If we apply it to sexuality, then bisexuality is the norm and exclusive homo- heterosexuality becomes special cases of the norm. ;-)

I understand that for everyday people, there is a connotation of superficiality in the term preference that exists less so in the term orientation as in the phrase, I prefer pepsi to coke. People misunderstand the term to refer to only insignificant preferences.

So I'll go with orientation for that reason. :-)