Parents Upset: Guess Why

[Kathianne]

Freakin' unreal. BTW Mx. is pronounced, 'mix', cute, huh? :

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/education/parents-upset-over-gender-unicorn-hand-outs-at-central-california-middle-school/103-38106341-f209-4030-9938-626f259a9b0b


Parents upset over 'Gender Unicorn' hand-outs at Central California middle school


The teacher told administrators he wanted to help students understand how he identifies, but some parents are frustrated about the gender identity handout.


Author: Giacomo Luca
Published: 6:35 PM PDT August 16, 2019
Updated: 8:04 PM PDT August 16, 2019


DENAIR, Calif. — A Denair Middle School science teacher passed out the “Gender Unicorn” work-sheet to two periods of science students on the first day of class before a principal asked him to stop.


The sheet which features a unicorn, asks students about gender identity, expression, and the person’s sex assigned at birth. The sheet also asks what gender each person is sexually and emotionally attracted to and gives options like man, woman, boy, girl, and other.




The Gender Unicorn was created by Trans Student Educational Resources, an organization that advocates for the LGBT community and distributes educational materials to schools.


“Maybe college or something where, you know, they're old enough - where they can make their own choices,” said Dawna French, a mother of a middle school student in that teacher's class.


Although her daughter was not handed a sheet, French calls the teacher's actions “inappropriate”


“It was not an assignment and students were not required or asked to fill it out,” said Terry Metzger, superintendent of the Denair Unified School District, in a statement.


The teacher was trying to help students understand why he identified using the courtesy title “Mx.” instead of “Mr.,” Metzger wrote.


The teacher did not show the sheet to the school administration or get approval before handing it out. A principal making the first day of school rounds noticed the content on the sheet.


“When she saw the content of the handout, she spoke with the teacher and directed him to stop distributing it,” Metzger said in a statement.


Although Metzger said gender identity is a topic covered in 7-12 grade health classes, the superintendent said the material “definitely wasn’t the right tool for his purpose.”


and here we go, certainly this is the business of teachers, right? Argggg!

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/08/12/USAT/0be8b1dc-f543-40f9-9c44-9176363df5dc-The_Gender_Unicorn.jpg?width=540&height=&fit=bounds&auto=webp

[Gunny]

Elementary school kids don't see much wrong with anything and will follow the lead of an elder usually. Foisting this gender identification BS on children is the crime.

Hell, I thought I could move to dodge City and still be a cowboy when I was in elementary school.

[Kathianne]

Elementary school kids don't see much wrong with anything and will follow the lead of an elder usually. Foisting this gender identification BS on children is the crime.

Hell, I thought I could move to dodge City and still be a cowboy when I was in elementary school.

Parents have 0 role, time for them to be counted. It's on them though.

[Noir]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?

[Kathianne]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?

How about using standard pronouns in school? The kids are learning English, not gender speak.

[jimnyc]

How about using standard pronouns in school? The kids are learning English, not gender speak.

Dummies make demands of schools starting in grammar school and their dummy parents support them. That's where and how it often starts. And your reply is perfect - simply not the place. And if they don't like it, then find a private school that caters to such. Otherwise, F off with any demands.

[Gunny]

Parents have 0 role, time for them to be counted. It's on them though.I kind of agree with your last comment; although, as a parent, it is damned hard to protect children from societal/peer pressure. They hear one thing at home but that's not what their friends are doing or wearing.

[Gunny]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?Response? "I'm too 'Mx.'d' up to know what's between my legs". :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

I kind of agree with your last comment; although, as a parent, it is damned hard to protect children from societal/peer pressure. They hear one thing at home but that's not what their friends are doing or wearing.

When your kids are not learning what they should or they are learning contrary to what you want them to learn regarding things teachers shouldn't be teaching-go to the administrator, not the teacher. You won't probably hear me say that about anything else.

Teachers already know what they are presenting. If it's crap like the above, talking to them is wasting breath and time. First the principal, then the superintendent, then the school board-with petitions if possible.

If it's your child's behavior, listen to the kid, then go to the teacher. Really listen, shocking that your kid might see something differently and not quite what you want. IF your think it is the teacher, then work your way up the chain again.

[Elessar]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?


How about using standard pronouns in school? The kids are learning English, not gender speak.

What Kath said.

Are you liberal wimps out to change the whole English language to justify your
hatred for standing platforms of respect and dignity?

Pretty weak trying to push that rubbish from you Noir.

[icansayit]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?



How about MX NOIR ?

[Noir]

How about using standard pronouns in school? The kids are learning English, not gender speak.

Maybe it’s different in the US, but in the U.K. Mx is and accepted legal title.
So I dunno where to draw your definition if “standard” from, but if everything from your passport to your Bank statements are under Mx that seems pretty standard to me.

[Kathianne]

Maybe it’s different in the US, but in the U.K. Mx is and accepted legal title.
So I dunno where to draw your definition if “standard” from, but if everything from your passport to your Bank statements are under Mx that seems pretty standard to me.

No, not here. Hope that doesn't change.

[Noir]

No, not here. Hope that doesn't change.

And if it did change would you then accept that a teacher could use the title Mx?

[Kathianne]

And if it did change would you then accept that a teacher could use the title Mx?
Then it wouldn't be questioned, it would be the norm.

Not all changes are for the better.

[Noir]

Then it wouldn't be questioned, it would be the norm.

Not all changes are for the better.

But you appreciate there is a time between something new becoming a “norm” during which questions will be asked?

[Kathianne]

But you appreciate there is a time between something new becoming a “norm” during which questions will be asked?

Yes, which what my response was about. Schools should be teaching what they are charged with, not a culture they are attempting to indoctrinate the students into.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

This is NOT the "NORM." I mean just for STARTERS, sexual deviancy is NOT NORMAL, it's PERVERTED. And this "IDENTIFY" crap is just that... CRAP. You can NEVER, CHANGE, YOUR BIOLOGICAL SEX, PERIOD, END OF STORY. So this IDENTIFY stuff is pure LIBERAL BULL SHIT... SICK, liberal bull shit, as in MENTALLY ILL. The only reason we saw this PERVERT GARBAGE in a classroom is because a faggot teacher pushed it on... IT'S... classroom. ALL this perverted CRAP is being PUSHED on kids by a MINORITY.... a MINORITY... and why it's allowed to pull this shit is beyond me.

Homos know they can't BREED anymore of themselves, so they have to INDOCTRINATE people into their sick, disgusting, perverted cult, and they know that's pretty much impossible to do with ADULTS, so they turn to the CHILDREN. They know DAMN WELL WHY they're in SCHOOLS pushing their queer shit on CHILDREN. Homos shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE NEAR a school. If kids want to learn about faggots, let them learn after they age to legal adult, and if a kid in school thinks they're a fag, then let them see the school counselor, IN PRIVATE.

Ya know, years ago the faggots used to say... "WE JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE," pfft... to which I said, sure, you have an agenda, and of course I was always ridiculed and told I was full of shit that there was NO HOMO AGENDA. Well, again, I was right. The fag agenda is alive and well and they're NOT EVEN HIDING IT ANYMORE. In fact, they've BRANCHED OUT to PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

How would you like this INKED UP, PAINTED, MULTI HORNED FAGGOT DEMON reading HOMO SHIT to YOUR KID in a PUBLIC LIBRARY? This is happening MORE and MORE. Just LOOKING at that... FUCKING WEIRD THING... gives me the utter CREEPS. It gives me the FIGHT OR FLIGHT feeling. If I saw that shit in a dream, it would be a NIGHTMARE, and I'd want to beat it to a pulp.

And these europeans... WOW... how utterly OVER THE TOP leftist, liberal so many of them think. I really wanted to visit Europe one day, but I'm pretty sure at this point I'll never step foot on that continent ever. America is pretty big place with lots of different kinds of landscapes and places to visit. I think I'll spend my vacation time right here in the ole US of A.

https://i.ibb.co/D7zzGQD/freak.jpg

[SassyLady]

But you appreciate there is a time between something new becoming a “norm” during which questions will be asked?

Noir, perhaps you can explain to me why male and female are not the norm any more even though babies are born with either a penis or vagina which have been the norm since life began.

What has changed in the physical characteristics of a penis or vagina that is not male or female anymore?

[Elessar]

Noir, perhaps you can explain to me why male and female are not the norm any more even though babies are born with either a penis or vagina which have been the norm since life began.

What has changed in the physical characteristics of a penis or vagina that is not male or female anymore?

Noir is a voice of WHY! Always on the wrong side of facts, always asks "Why this or Why that".

Cannot go with the flow of a discussion and injects his liberal whining into it.

[Kathianne]

Noir, perhaps you can explain to me why male and female are not the norm any more even though babies are born with either a penis or vagina which have been the norm since life began.

At least at school. I am fine with letting adults live and do whatever with their personal choices.

I do have problems with teachers coming into school and promoting a lifestyle of their choice onto their students. All the while claiming that the parents have no right foisting their beliefs onto their children, making them ____phobic. In fairness, I would have a problem with any teacher, married or not, talking about their intimate lives with students-it's not professional and can lead to other non-professional behaviors.

Music, favorite tv shows, etc.,? not a problem-those things build relationships.

[SassyLady]

I'm becoming more intolerant as the "norms" change. Why aren't the new "normals" being tolerant of my belief system which is that penis = male and vagina = female.

I am not 110 lbs, I am not 25, I am not 5'8" ..... no matter how much I might want to identify as such. So, I cannot understand how I can expect anyone to expect me to be a male when I dont have a penis.

Just telling the world I'm a young, skinny, tall man will not work in a world steeped in REALITY! I am a female, senior citizen, short and 20 lbs overweight. That is REALITY.

Too many people living fantasies in my opinion.

[Noir]

Noir, perhaps you can explain to me why male and female are not the norm any more even though babies are born with either a penis or vagina which have been the norm since life began.

What has changed in the physical characteristics of a penis or vagina that is not male or female anymore?

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about gender

[Noir]

Noir is a voice of WHY! Always on the wrong side of facts, always asks "Why this or Why that".

Cannot go with the flow of a discussion and injects his liberal whining into it.

I understand that it is terribly inconvenient that other people don’t agree with you all the time, but atleast you don’t whine about it (:

[Kathianne]

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about gender

Mine doesn't have as much to do with sex, as much as I don't think that schools should be used to indoctrinate children by those whose agendas are for a political cause, rather than the betterment of the children. First, schools are for teaching smaller children the basics of reading, math, writing, spelling, science, and history. Second, it's all very 'Hitler Youth' to me. Third, but not necessarily last, children should be about being children, not pawns. They should be learning to get along with their peers and adults. It's a time of developing their own judgement of those who are good for them and those who are not. They are developing the discernment of themselves, how they view themselves as relates to learning, family, friends, and their world as a whole. It is a time of fluidity, while concurrently demanding at getting a handle on the rigors of those basics. Throwing in a bunch of abstract ideas before they are mentally ready is not only impossible for them to comprehend, but detrimental to all the processes they have to accomplish at this critical time.

After the basics are learned, which are not being mastered as well as in the past, the upper elementary years should be on providing the opportunities for children for finding connections between all those basic subjects and how they blend and separate to create areas for further study and applications. During these years they need to practice and explore. To hypothesize and test. To find what they are better at, what can be improved upon, and what they may do in the future. They are beginning, but not completely ready, to know where their gifts, desires, hopes, and personalities may take them. It's a time when they are physically developing and all the confusion that brings. At the same time, responsibilities in academics, arts, and athletics should be competing with the demands of family and friendships. They have to succeed and fail in order to judge what they will begin to focus on and what they will let go of as they approach secondary schools.

Secondary schools should be more rigorous in academics, arts, languages, and athletics. It is the proper age for students to explore ideas and interests through clubs and electives. It's the age when the young adult may experiment with ideas that may differ from what has been 'known' to them through family and friends. Ideas though, in a free society should not be forced by those of an individual teacher or a group of like minded teachers-that is not teaching, that is indoctrination. It's a tricky area, much like, 'Schools may teach about a religion, but not THE religion,' one may recognize the difference only when knowledgeable and hearing/seeing it themselves.

Too often we'll hear teachers saying, 'parents indoctrinate-inappropriately-their children with ideas of religion, economics, philosophies, whatever.' Well, yeah, they always have. History also tells us that offspring often grow up to reject or change what they were taught from the cradle. Indeed, some have changed not only the ideas they were raised with, but the idea of how to raise their own children. Why? They had time. Time to learn the positives and negative, to explore and test. They could do with those 'facts' or 'truths' and compare and contrast those with others they were exposed to, through friends, school, and being in the community at large.

To think for oneself takes time and experiences.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about gender

Evidently on planet moonbat leftist, your SEX and your GENDER are two different things.

But here in the real world...

sex[ seks ]
noun
either the male or female division of a species,

gender[ jen-der ]
noun
either the male or female division of a species,

dictionary.com

[STTAB]

Freakin' unreal. BTW Mx. is pronounced, 'mix', cute, huh? :

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/education/parents-upset-over-gender-unicorn-hand-outs-at-central-california-middle-school/103-38106341-f209-4030-9938-626f259a9b0b


and here we go, certainly this is the business of teachers, right? Argggg!

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/08/12/USAT/0be8b1dc-f543-40f9-9c44-9176363df5dc-The_Gender_Unicorn.jpg?width=540&height=&fit=bounds&auto=webp


Interestingly, we just returned to school this week (I'm referring to our local school not myself) anyway we have a teacher who has kicked back saying he/she wishes to be addressed as Mx by students/teachers/admin/parents etc etc.

This came up at our school board meeting last Thursday whereupon I notified that teacher that shit would be coming into my school over my dead body.

Do whatever you please on your own time, but our school isn't going to allow the outright ignoring of both science and common morality. If you have xx chromosomes you will be addressed as Mrs or Ms if XY , Mr.

I wouldn't mind one bit if she sues.

[Kathianne]

Interestingly, we just returned to school this week (I'm referring to our local school not myself) anyway we have a teacher who has kicked back saying he/she wishes to be addressed as Mx by students/teachers/admin/parents etc etc.

This came up at our school board meeting last Thursday whereupon I notified that teacher that shit would be coming into my school over my dead body.

Do whatever you please on your own time, but our school isn't going to allow the outright ignoring of both science and common morality. If you have xx chromosomes you will be addressed as Mrs or Ms if XY , Mr.

I wouldn't mind one bit if she sues.

Public or private school?

[STTAB]

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about gender

Noir , is there ANY position a leftist douche would take that you would be like "no that's too far?"

sex and gender refer to the same goddamned thing and there are two. Male, female. Occasionally a person will be a genetic anamoly, but those are so few that we don't need 50 pronouns to describe them.

[Drummond]

Maybe it’s different in the US, but in the U.K. Mx is and accepted legal title.
So I dunno where to draw your definition if “standard” from, but if everything from your passport to your Bank statements are under Mx that seems pretty standard to me.

Curiously ... I'd never heard of 'Mx' until today. And I'm British, a born 'n' bred Londoner.

So, I had to look it up. Seems that many British institutions have adopted it as a possible title ! However ... that's HERE.

America, Noir, is a different culture, and they don't go in for perversions / denial of realities that the British Left happily adopt.

Here's what I found in Wikipedia ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)


In 2013 Brighton and Hove City Council in Sussex, England, voted to allow the use of Mx on council forms, and in 2014 the Royal Bank of Scotland included the title as an option. In 2015, recognition spread more broadly across UK institutions, including the Royal Mail, government agencies responsible for documents such as passports and driving licences, most major banks, several other companies, and UK charity Battersea Dogs & Cats Home.

The title is now accepted by the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs, the National Health Service and many councils, universities, insurance companies and utility retailers in the United Kingdom. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom confirmed in 2015 that it would accept the use of Mx by MPs. In 2017, HSBC banks announced the addition of Mx alongside several other gender-neutral titles as options for their customers. The 30 March announcement coincided with the International Transgender Day of Visibility, celebrated the following day.

In 2015, Mx was included in the Oxford English Dictionary. In 2016, Metro Bank became the first bank to offer Mx on its forms (though other banks had amended records to Mx on request prior to this), and HSBC adopted the title in 2017.

Although Mx remains uncommon in the United States, in April 2016 it was added to Merriam-Webster Unabridged.

Mixter is sometimes treated as a long form of the title (like Mister is of Mr).

Recognising 'Mx', it seems to me, is a nonsense (and why the Battersea Dogs Home sees any need to recognise 'Mx' is a mystery .. I wonder if Paul O'Grady goes along with it ... !!). Nope, 'sorry', Noir .. people are born with a gender. Denying sheer biological fact makes as much sense as advocating that the Moon is cube-shaped, or that gravity doesn't pull people downwards on Planet Earth .. it's a simple denial of reality itself.

But then ... isn't this typical of the Left ? They make up their own 'reality', then insist that everybody takes it on as the so-called 'REAL reality'. They see what they want to, then insist that everybody else does, too.

Reality doesn't match the Leftist 'reality' ? OK. Then pervert it, until it 'does'. This comes down to attitude control. And attitude control is a freedom-crushing exercise.

[SassyLady]

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about gender

So the question "what sex are you" and "what gender are you" no longer mean the same. Why? Have our physical bodies evolved in some way that I'm not aware of?

[STTAB]

Public or private school?

Public. She's a terrible teacher, but this is the first whack jobbery we've ever seen out of her.

[Noir]

So the question "what sex are you" and "what gender are you" no longer mean the same. Why? Have our physical bodies evolved in some way that I'm not aware of?

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

[Kathianne]

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

Way to over-intellectualize anything. There are important things going on in the world today, this is not one of them.

[SassyLady]

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

Since when? Since social justice warriors started popping up?

As I stated earlier ... why should I be tolerant of new behavior norms when they aren't my norms?

[Noir]

Since when? Since social justice warriors started popping up?

As I stated earlier ... why should I be tolerant of new behavior norms when they aren't my norms?

There is no “since” because they were never the same at any point.

[Noir]

Way to over-intellectualize anything. There are important things going on in the world today, this is not one of them.

Nothing is being over-intellectualised, gender and sex are not the same thing period.

Given you created this thread to discuss the topic presumably you ascribe some importance to it.

[Kathianne]

Nothing is being over-intellectualised, gender and sex are not the same thing period.

Given you created this thread to discuss the topic presumably you ascribe some importance to it.

Not on those that feel as adults that they need to bring classrooms full of students into the workings of their own issues. That was my point.

Noir, there is a world of difference between expectations of being treated equally and assuming special treatment in the name of tolerance.

I do not give a rat's blank about what adults do with adults in appropriate surroundings. I do care what adults do to children, physically, emotionally. I do not assume someone's personal sexual choices would effect their ability to teach. I do question someone who is supposed to be teaching and instead chooses to indoctrinate. It's abusive and they should be fired, not given publicity.

[SassyLady]

There is no “since” because they were never the same at any point.

Noir, I've been around way longer than you and I'm telling you this crap about sex and gender being different didn't exist in our world. Maybe it was here when you were born into it but it has definitely been the norm for them to be the same during my lifetime.

See, your thinking shows how corrupt liberal education has become. This idea that they are different is not the norm. I'm sure some liberal professor, SJW type lobbied to have definition changed to the BS you are spouting.

If I pulled every application I've ever filled out over my lifetime there are boxes asking about whether I'm a female or male, and the question is "what sex or what gender" are you which is directly related to whether I have penis or vagina. It had nothing to do with what I wanted to identify with.

So, yes ... "since" is very relevant. Your cavalier dismissal is blatant gaslighting.

[STTAB]

Nothing is being over-intellectualised, gender and sex are not the same thing period.

Given you created this thread to discuss the topic presumably you ascribe some importance to it.

Noir, I'm gonna ask again, is their ANY nuttery from the left that you would be willing to say "woah too far?" Because that's how you weed out a loon. Look at someone like myself or Kath versus someone like HPD on the right on this message board , for example. There are PLENTY of issues in which her and I have pushed back on the GOP for , while there truly is nothing that Trump especially could propose that the nut HPD wouldn't applaud. Seee , we're sane , he's insane. Always defendi9ng every whacky fucking idea that someone from your side proposes simply because they are on "your side" is equally insane whichever side you are on.

Gender and sex have meant the same fucking thing for nigh on 2500 years , at least. And you know this is factually true. That you can't simply say "hey believe what you want in your private life, but no teacher should be prothelisizing to their students , whether it is in regards to religion nor non religious beliefs like "sex and gender are two different things" reveals quite a lot about you .

[Noir]

Noir, I've been around way longer than you and I'm telling you this crap about sex and gender being different didn't exist in our world. Maybe it was here when you were born into it but it has definitely been the norm for them to be the same during my lifetime.

See, your thinking shows how corrupt liberal education has become. This idea that they are different is not the norm. I'm sure some liberal professor, SJW type lobbied to have definition changed to the BS you are spouting.

If I pulled every application I've ever filled out over my lifetime there are boxes asking about whether I'm a female or male, and the question is "what sex or what gender" are you which is directly related to whether I have penis or vagina. It had nothing to do with what I wanted to identify with.

So, yes ... "since" is very relevant. Your cavalier dismissal is blatant gaslighting.

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

12178

[High_Plains_Drifter]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

12178

I see a picture... I don't see any proof that's an American, or a boy, or that it's from 1884.

[STTAB]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

12178

Can't help but notice you ignored my question.

[icansayit]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

12178


I Think most of us have NO need to see the way you dress today using old photography techniques.

[jimnyc]

Not on those that feel as adults that they need to bring classrooms full of students into the workings of their own issues. That was my point.

Noir, there is a world of difference between expectations of being treated equally and assuming special treatment in the name of tolerance.

I do not give a rat's blank about what adults do with adults in appropriate surroundings. I do care what adults do to children, physically, emotionally. I do not assume someone's personal sexual choices would effect their ability to teach. I do question someone who is supposed to be teaching and instead chooses to indoctrinate. It's abusive and they should be fired, not given publicity.

Some want to allow anything and everything to go at home, up to and including claims that a 2 year old, for example, is NOT what is in his/her pants say. And then, to make matters worse, they go public with this bullshit and make demands. Then it's gotten around and now multiple liberal idiots at once may complain that their child is actually of a different sex, and then make demands of the education system to honor whatever their retarded claims may be. If the teacher is the one doing the indoctrination, I agree, toss them out the back door. If a parent or child makes such a demand, tell them politely it's not something to be dealt with in school - end of story.


Noir, I've been around way longer than you and I'm telling you this crap about sex and gender being different didn't exist in our world. Maybe it was here when you were born into it but it has definitely been the norm for them to be the same during my lifetime.

See, your thinking shows how corrupt liberal education has become. This idea that they are different is not the norm. I'm sure some liberal professor, SJW type lobbied to have definition changed to the BS you are spouting.

If I pulled every application I've ever filled out over my lifetime there are boxes asking about whether I'm a female or male, and the question is "what sex or what gender" are you which is directly related to whether I have penis or vagina. It had nothing to do with what I wanted to identify with.

So, yes ... "since" is very relevant. Your cavalier dismissal is blatant gaslighting.

Hell, I've filled out many that had gender as the question, with the appropriate responses being TWO responses only - male or female. There have been weirdos all along but it's spread since social media has arrived, and the crazies convene together. :(

It's the norm and appropriate to ask either sex or gender, and including within both male/female as the responses - as without the ever so tolerant nitwits out there making demands, that's all their ever was. And all their currently is, IMO. Perhaps add-in options like "other" and they can place in their chose to be opposite gender, or chose to be one of the newly found 50+ claimed genders out there now. Whatever floats their "other" boats. Or maybe simply add the biological obvious, do you have a penis or vagina?

Just like others want to be known as Super Man, Marlboro Man, or a genderless alien - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4274396/Man-spends-50-000-transform-genderless-ALIEN.html

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Or maybe simply add the biological obvious, do you have a penis or vagina?
THERE YA GO... DING, DING, DING... WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!

Best suggestion I've heard thus far.

[SassyLady]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

12178

I have to tell you that one photo does not make it the norm. Most Americans from 1884 couldn't afford photos. That was not the norm. It might be the norm for wealthy to dress their children like a fop, but it was not the norm for the masses.

[Kathianne]

I have to tell you that one photo does not make it the norm. Most Americans from 1884 couldn't afford photos. That was not the norm. It might be the norm for wealthy to dress their children like a fop, but it was not the norm for the masses.

Yep, I sort of remember a picture like that of one of the Roosevelts, likely Teddy if Noir is correct on the dates.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yep, I sort of remember a picture like that of one of the Roosevelts, likely Teddy if Noir is correct on the dates.
Very intuitive, Kath. I did a reverse google search of the image and found this...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/fdr-grew-up-in-a-dress-it-wasnt-always-blue-for-boys-and-pink-for-girls/237299/

and...

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/04/08/breeching-boys-2/

[Elessar]

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

Is that just a personal statement, or a proven fact?

Look up the meaning of Gender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

A lot of twisting in there, but bottom line is Gender means born male or female.

Screw your behavioral and societal opinion.

[Elessar]

Not on those that feel as adults that they need to bring classrooms full of students into the workings of their own issues. That was my point.

Noir, there is a world of difference between expectations of being treated equally and assuming special treatment in the name of tolerance.

I do not give a rat's blank about what adults do with adults in appropriate surroundings. I do care what adults do to children, physically, emotionally. I do not assume someone's personal sexual choices would effect their ability to teach. I do question someone who is supposed to be teaching and instead chooses to indoctrinate. It's abusive and they should be fired, not given publicity.

Excellent, Kathianne!

[Kathianne]

Very intuitive, Kath. I did a reverse google search of the image and found this...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/fdr-grew-up-in-a-dress-it-wasnt-always-blue-for-boys-and-pink-for-girls/237299/

and...

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/04/08/breeching-boys-2/

All that schooling, had to remember a couple things. LOL! It was FDR though, hard to think the president for WWII was born at the end of the Victorian Era.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

All that schooling, had to remember a couple things. LOL! It was FDR though, hard to think the president for WWII was born at the end of the Victorian Era.
Eisenhower was president when I was born. Course I don't remember that but, shows how OLD I am... :rolleyes:

Calvin Coolidge was president when my Ma was born... http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shocked/jaw-drop-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

[Kathianne]

Eisenhower was president when I was born. Course I don't remember that but, shows how OLD I am... :rolleyes:

Calvin Coolidge was president when my Ma was born... http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shocked/jaw-drop-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

Ike for me too, Wilson for my dad, for a couple months, then Harding for both my folks.

[Drummond]

There is no “since” because they were never the same at any point.

Oh, really ? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think you invent this stuff to suit yourself, Noir. Either that, or you have a very 'creative' scriptwriter ....

OK ... @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) ... I'll issue a challenge to you. If these 'differences' of perception you claim exist not only do, but have for a considerable time ... supply a link to some literature, or better yet, a debate, in which the 'sex' of a person and the 'gender' of a person are seen as definitely different concepts.

Something going back decades (to prove it's not a recent invention) ... and, preferably, not something originating from a Leftie / propagandist source, either. A source having scientific background to it, how about that ?

If they were 'never the same at any point', you should find it easy to locate, and offer us, proof going back quite a way ! So let's see you do it.

[If you CAN'T .... then, instead, try admitting that you're foisting some strange brand of perverse Leftie thinking on us ...]

[Drummond]

Ike for me too, Wilson for my dad, for a couple months, then Harding for both my folks.

Wilson for me too !!

[Of course, in my case, I'm referring to Harold Wilson ... Leftie PM of the Sixties and again in the Seventies ...]:rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Wilson for me too !!

[Of course, in my case, I'm referring to Harold Wilson ... Leftie PM of the Sixties and again in the Seventies ...]:rolleyes:
:laugh2:

[Drummond]

See attached a photo of an American boy from 1884, in clothing typical of a boy for that period, before more modern conventions of gendered clothing. If a parent were to dress there child the same way today would you scoff?

12178

'Gender' and clothing fashions of a period .... the one is indicative of the other ?? What rubbish.

Fashions change over the generations, and eras. In the 1970's, it was commonplace fashion to see men have long hair .. shoulder-length and sometimes longer. Are you telling me that men of the Seventies were therefore more, shall we say, 'gender ambiguous' ?

Arab dress in the Middle East ... men not wearing trousers, but v long 'dresses' ... Noir, you're very welcome to walk up to a Saudi citizen in that country and accuse him of gender ambiguity !! Maybe he'll give you a sharp lesson in Sharia 'justice' for your trouble ?? :laugh:

How about Scotsmen wearing kilts, then ? Are they just 'a bunch of Jessies' ... ?

You can't apply present-day concepts of 'dress sense' to people of bygone eras !! That's just ridiculous.

[Noir]

I have to tell you that one photo does not make it the norm. Most Americans from 1884 couldn't afford photos. That was not the norm. It might be the norm for wealthy to dress their children like a fop, but it was not the norm for the masses.

Information of the image and sources multiple sources in the early 20th Century agree with the norm at the time being that boys and girls both wore dresses, and that of the pastal colours boys should wear pink, and girls blue.

“We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/


'Gender' and clothing fashions of a period .... the one is indicative of the other ?? What rubbish.

Fashions change over the generations, and eras. In the 1970's, it was commonplace fashion to see men have long hair .. shoulder-length and sometimes longer. Are you telling me that men of the Seventies were therefore more, shall we say, 'gender ambiguous' ?

Arab dress in the Middle East ... men not wearing trousers, but v long 'dresses' ... Noir, you're very welcome to walk up to a Saudi citizen in that country and accuse him of gender ambiguity !! Maybe he'll give you a sharp lesson in Sharia 'justice' for your trouble ?? :laugh:

How about Scotsmen wearing kilts, then ? Are they just 'a bunch of Jessies' ... ?

You can't apply present-day concepts of 'dress sense' to people of bygone eras !! That's just ridiculous.

I am very pleased to see that you also believe that clothes do not have gender implications, and welcome the multiple examples you gave of this.

[Drummond]

I am very pleased to see that you also believe that clothes do not have gender implications, and welcome the multiple examples you gave of this.

Now I'm confused. I'm beginning to wonder if you're realising that your position is nonsense.

In any case, is clothing fashion really the point now at issue, thanks to your posting ? I've asked you to offer evidence from some time ago to support your 'gender v sex' argument. I've yet to see any from you. Could this perhaps be because there is actually NOT any evidence to back your argument, after all ?

If there is, Noir -- I repeat my challenge. Supply the evidence I've asked for !

If you can't, then I suggest you admit that your argument is your invention, or, just maybe, the invention of some cloud-cuckooland Leftie playing games with social perceptions ... as they like to do, in their dictatorially deranged way ...

[Noir]

Now I'm confused. I'm beginning to wonder if you're realising that your position is nonsense.

In any case, is clothing fashion really the point now at issue, thanks to your posting ? I've asked you to offer evidence from some time ago to support your 'gender v sex' argument. I've yet to see any from you. Could this perhaps be because there is actually NOT any evidence to back your argument, after all ?

If there is, @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) -- I repeat my challenge. Supply the evidence I've asked for !

If you can't, then I suggest you admit that your argument is your invention, or, just maybe, the invention of some cloud-cuckooland Leftie playing games with social perceptions ... as they like to do, in their dictatorially deranged way ...



sex
noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun)
Definition of sex
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures In the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room.— Jacquelyn Mitchard
b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sexdoes not determine gender.— Dinitia Smith
c: the state of being male or female … Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.— Tamar Lewin
d: males or females considered as a group He gave the minister a sly look, daring him to disparage the female sex.— Evelyn Anthony


gender

noun (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun)
Definition of gender

(Entry 1 of 2)


1a: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c: an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 3a (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflection)) showing membership in such a subclass

2a: SEX sense 1a (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex) the feminine gender
b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
c: GENDER IDENTITY (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender%20identity)Those seeking state driver's licenses in Massachusetts are closer to being able to designate their gender as "X" instead of "male" or "female." The state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would allow for the nonbinary designation on licenses.— Steve LeBlancFacebook's message was clear when the social media network added new gender options for users on Thursday: the company is sensitive to a wide spectrum of gender identity and wants users to feel accommodated no matter where they see themselves on that spectrum.— Katy Steinmetz

For some reason these two definitions aren’t identical, almost like they’re different or something, weird.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Now I'm confused. I'm beginning to wonder if you're realising that your position is nonsense.

In any case, is clothing fashion really the point now at issue, thanks to your posting ? I've asked you to offer evidence from some time ago to support your 'gender v sex' argument. I've yet to see any from you. Could this perhaps be because there is actually NOT any evidence to back your argument, after all ?

If there is, @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) -- I repeat my challenge. Supply the evidence I've asked for !

If you can't, then I suggest you admit that your argument is your invention, or, just maybe, the invention of some cloud-cuckooland Leftie playing games with social perceptions ... as they like to do, in their dictatorially deranged way ...
You've cornered him, brother, and now he has to attempt to liberal psycho-babble his way out of it without having to admit he was wrong.

Arrogant, know it all, self aggrandizing leftists never admit they were wrong. It's beneath them, just like you and I are beneath them. We should be bowing down to his brilliance and be mouth agape in awe of his presence here... that's how leftists like Noir view themselves.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

[/COLOR]
For some reason these two definitions aren’t identical, almost like they’re different or something, weird.
[/FONT][/COLOR]




Of course, I already copied and pasted right off dictionary.com where they are the same, but he ignored that... weird.

He had to find a dictionary website that has been edited to reflect the new leftist idiocy of gender dysfunction.

I think Noir should be required to provide a link to the page too, or isn't that plagiarism?

[Noir]

Is that just a personal statement, or a proven fact?


Look up the meaning of Gender:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
A lot of twisting in there, but bottom line is Gender means born male or female.
Screw your behavioral and societal opinion.

Did you even read this before posting?



Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity andfemininity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femininity). Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex)(i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)variation), sex-based social structures (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure)(i.e., gender roles (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role)), or gender identity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#cite_note-udry-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#cite_note-haig-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#cite_note-www.who.int-3)

“May include sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation)”
It literally says that gender and sex are not the same in the first few dozen words.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

And here comes all the "NEW" revised leftist gender dysfunction psychobabble that were all supposed to believe is 1, old as the hills, and 2, is normal. Of course, neither is true.

......................... :bsflag:

[Gunny]

Your question relates to sex when the discussion I was having about the title Mx being the norm is about genderIntellectually dishonest attempt at playing semantics.

You KNOW what is being discussed.

[Gunny]

They have never been the same.
Gender is behavioural and societal. Sex is biological.

Ummm ... you in some kind of backward universe, or what? Sex is behavior. Gender is biological.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Scenario -
Teacher used title Mx.
Students asks why they use Mx.
Teacher should respond how?

Respond how?
Perhaps the teacher should speak the truth and say- because I am a dumbass POS, using my own preference/insanity to
score points as a courageous fighter--- when truth is the teacher is a ffing moron.
Just that simple, but of course you will disagree since sadly, it is apparent that you think in much the same way..-Tyr

[Gunny]

Nothing is being over-intellectualised, gender and sex are not the same thing period.

Given you created this thread to discuss the topic presumably you ascribe some importance to it.Technically, you are correct in your first sentence. Which, has nothing to do with the discussion. It's a cheap attempt to deflect.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ummm ... you in some kind of backward universe, or what? Sex is behavior. Gender is biological.

If he has those two mixed up-- just imagine what else he very likely is to also have so very mixed up- :laugh: ....--Tyr

[SassyLady]

Information of the image and sources multiple sources in the early 20th Century agree with the norm at the time being that boys and girls both wore dresses, and that of the pastal colours boys should wear pink, and girls blue.

“We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/



Again, Noir, not the norm for the masses. I can guarantee that lower and middle class American boys did not wear pink dresses. This is what's wrong with progressive thinking. They find a few examples to support their theory and then extrapolate to "everyone did/is doing it".

"Societal" norms are hardly ever the norm for the masses. The masses couldn't afford to keep up with the society that shows up in photographs. Farm and ranch boys didn't wear dresses.

[SassyLady]

[/COLOR]
For some reason these two definitions aren’t identical, almost like they’re different or something, weird.
[/FONT][/COLOR]





What dictionary did you find this in and what's the date of publication? Remember, you are trying to support your statement about this is not a new norm.

[Noir]

Again, Noir, not the norm for the masses. I can guarantee that lower and middle class American boys did not wear pink dresses. This is what's wrong with progressive thinking. They find a few examples to support their theory and then extrapolate to "everyone did/is doing it".

"Societal" norms are hardly ever the norm for the masses. The masses couldn't afford to keep up with the society that shows up in photographs. Farm and ranch boys didn't wear dresses.

Well you can take that up with researchers at the Smithsonian.


What dictionary did you find this in and what's the date of publication? Remember, you are trying to support your statement about this is not a new norm.

Merriam-Webster, citing the first use of gender as definition 1a (which I posted above) as being from the 14th Century.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Again, Noir, not the norm for the masses. I can guarantee that lower and middle class American boys did not wear pink dresses. This is what's wrong with progressive thinking. They find a few examples to support their theory and then extrapolate to "everyone did/is doing it".

"Societal" norms are hardly ever the norm for the masses. The masses couldn't afford to keep up with the society that shows up in photographs. Farm and ranch boys didn't wear dresses.

What is sad is that there is a movement out there that seeks to destroy what is normal- in order to advance the the weird, the abnormal , the fantasy world that the liberals/socialist/ dems and their perverted allies want to make reality and the dominate new culture/new norm...
It is truly delusional fantasy on parade yet mainstream media, Hollyweird and other so-called enlightened, progressive groups are hellbent on convincing millions it is normal..
Poppycock! What is normal comes natural to us-- we boys see beautiful girls and we desire those beautiful girls.
Girls see handsome boys and desire handsome boys. That is normal and has been for many thousands of years..
Yet in this modern world we have these dedicated groups that cry it is not normal and their abnormal, perverted ways are normal!
Poppycock!
Normal is exactly what has allowed survival of the species (male/female relationship,marriage and normal procreation)--not this utter bullshit abnormal crap that they( the dems, libs, progressives, gays, trans and other assorted vermin/trash ) are trying to peddle.. TYR

[Drummond]

[/COLOR]
For some reason these two definitions arenÂ’t identical, almost like theyÂ’re different or something, weird.
[/FONT][/COLOR]





Heh heh. You're really struggling with this, aren't you, Noir ? High Plains Drifter is, I'm thinking, spot on ... I've got you on the ropes ..

It may be interesting to note that the State of Massachusetts recognises an 'X' gender. What this also says is that even this distinction has been taken on by ONE authority in America, and therefore that it's very far from 'universally' accepted.

Perhaps it's something political with them, an attempt to obey a politically 'correct' form of thinking ? Which proves precisely what about its CORRECT usage ?

What does it prove ? Anything ?

It says that they're the exception, Noir, not the norm. So tell me, what makes them right, and everybody else wrong ? H'mm .. ?

... OK. Time to remind you of what I asked you to provide !!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?67432-Parents-Upset-Guess-Why&p=941316#post941316

Requote (!) ....


OK ... @Noir ... I'll issue a challenge to you. If these 'differences' of perception you claim exist not only do, but have for a considerable time ... supply a link to some literature, or better yet, a debate, in which the 'sex' of a person and the 'gender' of a person are seen as definitely different concepts.

Something going back decades (to prove it's not a recent invention) ... and, preferably, not something originating from a Leftie / propagandist source, either. A source having scientific background to it, how about that ?

If they were 'never the same at any point', you should find it easy to locate, and offer us, proof going back quite a way ! So let's see you do it.

What you've provided is a far cry from what I asked you for. Your definitions didn't come with a source link. They also did nothing to show that there's anything 'old' about them, at all. You claimed that the definitions of 'sex' and 'gender' were never the same at any point, and I wanted you to provide evidence that this may be the case. You've done NOTHING of the sort, have you ??

I think that any 'differences' between these definitions is at least relatively recent, and that they're a revision (no doubt orchestrated by the Left) of the older, original, definitions. You've been challenged to disprove that with evidence of an old source of differing definitions, and YOU'VE NOT DELIVERED.

You can't. Can you, Noir ?

I'll challenge you a second time to prove me wrong. Go to it.

If you can. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

As is the wont, the thread has gone in a related but off my main point, which I do like. I like the discussion, but still wonder how many, including Noir, understand why this back and forth, no matter what your position, is not something to be that I find appropriate in school, especially before perhaps 11th or 12th year of school? It certainly isn't something a 2nd or 3rd grader should be pressured by a teacher to 'take a stand about,' when they should be studying their math facts and haven't a clue to what the discussion would be about.

Thus, the teacher placing an 8 year old in the position of 'agreeing' to use a title that they've no clue to the underlying meaning?

[Drummond]

Merriam-Webster, citing the first use of gender as definition 1a (which I posted above) as being from the 14th Century.

I look forward to your evidence, Noir, that definition 1a comes from the same period as 2c, which is the first example offered of any differing actual usage of the terms. I'm raising this, Noir, as something to query .. because in 2c, there's mention of, I quote:


Those seeking state driver's licenses in Massachusetts are closer to being able to designate their gender as "X" instead of "male" or "female."

I look forward to your evidence that drivers licences were ever a consideration, back in the 14th century .....:rolleyes:

You see the problem ? NO, repeat, NO, evidence has been offered showing that differing applications of 'sex' v 'gender' were ever employed before recent times. You need, in order to prove your point, to show that differences in concepts between the two terms are anything other than recent invention.

2/10 (given for effort, not any result !). Must try harder, my son !

[Noir]

I look forward to your evidence, Noir, that definition 1a comes from the same period as 2c, which is the first example offered of any differing actual usage of the terms. I'm raising this, Noir, as something to query .. because in 2c, there's mention of, I quote:



I look forward to your evidence that drivers licences were ever a consideration, back in the 14th century .....:rolleyes:

You see the problem ? NO, repeat, NO, evidence has been offered showing that differing applications of 'sex' v 'gender' were ever employed before recent times. You need, in order to prove your point, to show that differences in concepts between the two terms are anything other than recent invention.

2/10 (given for effort, not any result !). Must try harder, my son !

You’ll have to contact Merriam-Webster and ask them why they are lying(?) about first sourcing definition 1a to the 14th Century.

[Drummond]

You’ll have to contact Merriam-Webster and ask them why they are lying(?) about first sourcing definition 1a to the 14th Century.

Evasive at absolute best.

Now do as I've asked. Link (or links) proving that the differences between definitions that you CLAIM exist, go back decades &/or generations, as proof of your claim that they've 'always been different'.

You might start with an actual link leading us to what you posted, then work from there to help prove what you assert. Until you do, I consider that your claim is unproven.

After all, if you are right, there must be multiple proofs out there ! Yes ?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for proof that driving licences were something to think about, in the 14th century ......

[icansayit]

There HAVE TO BE THREE GENDERS....according to his lack of common sense, and reasoning. So...I will happily agree with Noir on this one.

Only if Noir will fess up, and tell us which Gender is Noir's Chosen number.... 1. Male 2. Female 3. Undetermined (confused).

[Gunny]

As is the wont, the thread has gone in a related but off my main point, which I do like. I like the discussion, but still wonder how many, including @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517), understand why this back and forth, no matter what your position, is not something to be that I find appropriate in school, especially before perhaps 11th or 12th year of school? It certainly isn't something a 2nd or 3rd grader should be pressured by a teacher to 'take a stand about,' when they should be studying their math facts and haven't a clue to what the discussion would be about.

Thus, the teacher placing an 8 year old in the position of 'agreeing' to use a title that they've no clue to the underlying meaning?I was going to say that for you but the munchkin decided to get up early :).

[Elessar]

As is the wont, the thread has gone in a related but off my main point, which I do like. I like the discussion, but still wonder how many, including Noir, understand why this back and forth, no matter what your position, is not something to be that I find appropriate in school, especially before perhaps 11th or 12th year of school? It certainly isn't something a 2nd or 3rd grader should be pressured by a teacher to 'take a stand about,' when they should be studying their math facts and haven't a clue to what the discussion would be about.

Thus, the teacher placing an 8 year old in the position of 'agreeing' to use a title that they've no clue to the underlying meaning?

That is exactly correct. All that personal opinion trash should be parked at the door. Indoctrinating at an early age is not teaching at all.
It is warping young minds to follow a terrible path into adulthood. They are trying to manipulate personalities at an early age. That really
should be a crime, reason for suspension from the school system.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That is exactly correct. All that personal opinion trash should be parked at the door. Indoctrinating at an early age is not teaching at all.
It is warping young minds to follow a terrible path into adulthood. They are trying to manipulate personalities at an early age. That really
should be a crime, reason for suspension from the school system.

If any adult male ever corrects me(thus insults me) and demands that I use that ridiculous title instead of Mr.,
well lets just say I would be immediately placed in a quandary as to whether to slap the asshat or else hit him with my closed fist.
A coin toss, could go either way.. -Tyr

[Noir]

As is the wont, the thread has gone in a related but off my main point, which I do like. I like the discussion, but still wonder how many, including @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517), understand why this back and forth, no matter what your position, is not something to be that I find appropriate in school, especially before perhaps 11th or 12th year of school? It certainly isn't something a 2nd or 3rd grader should be pressured by a teacher to 'take a stand about,' when they should be studying their math facts and haven't a clue to what the discussion would be about.

Thus, the teacher placing an 8 year old in the position of 'agreeing' to use a title that they've no clue to the underlying meaning?

For what materials/lessons are taught in school, sure there’s a discussion to be had on relevance etc. But for something like someone’s name or other personal identifiers (for example a wedding ring) they seem completely appropriate to me.

[Kathianne]

For what materials/lessons are taught in school, sure there’s a discussion to be had on relevance etc. But for something like someone’s name or other personal identifiers (for example a wedding ring) they seem completely appropriate to me.

Not when it causes enough stir to make a news program.

[STTAB]

If any adult male ever corrects me(thus insults me) and demands that I use that ridiculous title instead of Mr.,
well lets just say I would be immediately placed in a quandary as to whether to slap the asshat or else hit him with my closed fist.
A coin toss, could go either way.. -Tyr
Hey everyone look we have our very own ANTIFA member "say what I don't like and I"ll hit you"

Of course we all know Mr Big Talk is full of shit, so no harm no foul

[STTAB]

For what materials/lessons are taught in school, sure there’s a discussion to be had on relevance etc. But for something like someone’s name or other personal identifiers (for example a wedding ring) they seem completely appropriate to me.

It seems appropriate to you because you are a liberal parrot who is okay with anything the left does. If these dipshits were introducing first graders to marijuana during school hours you would be on here trying to justify it

Noir, most of these schools pushing this kinda shit aren't even getting their students up to grade level in the core subjects. How about if those teachers focus on their fucking jobs?

[Drummond]

Hey everyone look we have our very own ANTIFA member "say what I don't like and I"ll hit you"

Of course we all know Mr Big Talk is full of shit, so no harm no foul

What the hell .. ????

STTAB, why did you post this ? You can't believe yourself to be justified in doing so.

Tyr is a fine contributor to this forum ... he commands my respect, on a number of levels (not least that he's a dedicated RIGHT WING patriot). By no stretch of the imagination could he have come within a light year of deserving this abuse, abuse which, by the way, grossly libels him.

Rethink what you've posted. I suggest you apologise.

[STTAB]

What the hell .. ????

STTAB, why did you post this ? You can't believe yourself to be justified in doing so.

Tyr is a fine contributor to this forum ... he commands my respect, on a number of levels (not least that he's a dedicated RIGHT WING patriot). By no stretch of the imagination could he have come within a light year of deserving this abuse, abuse which, by the way, grossly libels him.

Rethink what you've posted. I suggest you apologise.


I posted that because left, right. center, black, white, patriot, hates America , I don't care when you talk about hitting people who say things you don't agree with, you absolutely deserve to be called out for it, and in point of fact the people we should MOST be calling out for it are the people who align with you politically. I've no doubt that if Petey came in here and posted that he'd beat someone up if they said something he didn't like that you would , rightfully, call him out for such.

IT's called having a principle sir, and one of my principles is I don't cotton to hitting people who use words we don't like.

[jimnyc]

I posted that because left, right. center, black, white, patriot, hates America , I don't care when you talk about hitting people who say things you don't agree with, you absolutely deserve to be called out for it, and in point of fact the people we should MOST be calling out for it are the people who align with you politically. I've no doubt that if Petey came in here and posted that he'd beat someone up if they said something he didn't like that you would , rightfully, call him out for such.

IT's called having a principle sir, and one of my principles is I don't cotton to hitting people who use words we don't like.

You were asked - told - repeatedly to stop replying to a few people who have you on ignore. It serves NO PURPOSE to go nasty or personal with someone who can't even read your comments. Doesn't matter that you don't like what they have posted. All involved know all that was said to everyone - and those folks held up their end of the bargain and you replied anyway, even when I asked you not to. That's why you were thread banned fro several threads for doing so yesterday. Then apparently you state you are leaving, instead of just not replying to people who have you on ignore. Makes no sense at all to me, but your choice to make.

Others are/were upset that this "wasn't handled" - when posts were NEVER REPORTED nor did I get any contact whatsoever - other than they were leaving as well - even though the issue WAS handled within minutes of me very initially finding out. Neither myself, nor others on staff, read every single thread and every post - that's why the report a post function is important - or alternatively one can PM me directly. If either of those happen, I get notified. The only thing I was notified about was folks leaving.

I have bent backwards IMO for all involved. While all involved had gotten angry or whatever at times, the primary thing was freedom of speech, while still trying to handle the issue. Then its come to this. Did I fight with any involved? Nope. Did I ignore any pleas for assistance or when a post was reported in the past few days? Nope. Was I on here with the ability to read everything 24x7? Nope, been sick and that's why you saw limited posts from me. Yet - within minutes it was handled. By that time, some quit already. Then "handling" the issue had yet another choose to leave.

Did freedom of speech work? Nope.
Did talking with other members and reasoning with them help? Nope.
Did getting folks to use the ignore feature solve the issue? Nope.

I tried. But unsure what folks want - SHORT of folks wanting the other person instantly banned over things they don't like. Or allowing a free for all. Neither is or ever was going to happen.

Sucks, and I saw some involved as friends, but I cannot help if not even asked to, and can't be any more lenient, IMO.