Young 'uns These Days Are america's Future

1. 87

   GA Andersonposted 14 months ago

   A glorious solution for the fragile . . .
   
   New Hampshire students protest urinal ban in gender debate
   
   "Dozens of students walked out of their New Hampshire school after the district banned urinals in a compromise to a proposal that would have blocked children from using facilities based on their gender identity."
   . . .
   "Under the new policy, the maximum occupancy for each bathroom and locker room will be capped at the number of stalls it contains. It also prevents students from using shared changing areas."
   
   Can't pick a gender? No policy decision-makers with courage? Give them all stalls, problem solved.
   
   Geez,
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I have never been keen on this gender bender stuff, sometimes you can go too far....
      
      I am anachronistic only in the sense that ones anatomical make up should be the ultimate determiner of gender.
      
      "You gotta make a way, you better make a way for the "young folks"; Jackson 5 (1970)

      replyreport
      1. 87

         GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Your quote was the point and the criticism.
         
         The gender identity stuff—relative to individuals,  isn't an issue for me, it doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree. The more telling problem is the lack of courage of the educational decision-makers involved in the process.
         
         Their lack of courage is enabling more division. It is harming the character growth of those 'young'uns that are the stock of future leaders. Make a decision. Either way, make a decision.
         
         Ga

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            +1000000000000

            replyreport
   2. 84

      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "Dozens of students walked out of their New Hampshire school after the district banned urinals in a compromise to a proposal that would have blocked children from using facilities based on their gender identity."
      
      Sick --- next they will show the hypocrisy and want to put urinals in women's bathrooms.   Hopefully, the parents will join the protest.

      replyreport
   3. 93

      Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I’m confused, I found an article that covers the story (link below), but even after reading the full article it wasn’t really any clearer to me? 
      
      https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … der-debate
      
      Once I’d sussed that ‘bathroom’ is the American word for ‘toilet’, and on assuming that ‘locker room’ is the American word for ‘changing room’, and that ‘stalls’ is the American word for  cubicles, it seemed to make a little more sense, I think?
      
      As far as I can understand it, by banning the use of the urinals so that students can only use cubicles effectively turns the gender assigned toilets into unisex toilets – Have I understood correctly???
      
      If I have got the right end of the stick then what is all the fuse about; if you’ve ever toured France then that might raise a few eyebrows, not least some of their unisex public toilets we’ve used in France, where the women have to walk pass the urinals to get to the cubicles; and one or two tourist towns we’ve visited in France have unisex public cubicles (like a public phone box) that don’t have doors on them e.g. the French are far more open about such bodily functions than Brits and Americans.
      
      Paris, France eco-friendly urinals:  https://youtu.be/LCiY9VGd90w

      replyreport
      1. 87

         GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         You have the terminology right. In short, I think the bathroom argument is silly, as a detail, but important as a symptom of the real problem. I see the real problem to be the cultural indecision of leaders that is harming the character growth of kids—the future leaders of any nation.
         
         Coming from a [C]conservative perspective and as Pres. Biden would say, "Here's the deal . . ."
         
         The problem is a conservative vs. liberal view of the reality of the transgender issue. In very broad and general terms, a conservative believes gender is a biological definition and liberals believe it is a mental definition
         
         A conservative says a penis is a male and a vagina is a female. A liberal says 'yeah but . . .' if the head says one thing and the body says something else, then the head gets to decide the gender, aka a gender-identity definition instead of a biological one.
         
         The tangents of the argument: the bathroom debate, the transgender sports questions, et al. are just the symptoms that get the attention while the real problem festers behind both sides' arguments.
         
         Conservatives say one is physically the sex of their biology. End of story. A [C]conservative may be okay with someone feeling and living their life as whatever gender they want, but that doesn't change their actual physical gender.
         
         And that's where the bathrooms and sports issues come into play. They're like 'clickbait', everyone focuses on those symptoms, and the displayed indecision about the root issue—what is a man or woman, boy or girl, gets buried under the arguments about urinals and stalls, and inherent male strength vs. female strength.
         
         This indecision has flowed from the top, (national leaders), to the kitchen table of parents and the school hallways of kids. Kids in their most formative years, (say, 8 - 15), now face indecision on their most basic realities. And there are no adults to guide them. No touchstones of reality to rely on.
         
         The issue has even gotten to the point that there are now doctors speculating about removing the birth gender designation from birth registration forms.
         
         A lot of liberal 'pushes' are hard for conservatives to adjust to, or accept, ie. LBGQT issues, but mostly they are beneficial pushes that deserve attention and acceptance, (at the least, tolerance). Reasonable conservatives were getting there, slowly, but there was progress. Now, conservatives are being demanded to deny biological realities. And that is too much to ask.
         
         That is the 'adult', (aka parent, teacher, mentor, idol, that kids look to in their formative years), argument that surrounds kids' everyday life. We don't have the courage to make a decision about what defines a man or woman and that is a damaging environment for young minds learning to form their character.
         
         That is the topic of the OP, not the removal of urinals.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 91

            peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            GA:  That was an excellent summary of the issue.  I couldn't have said it better, other than nature never does anything in a straight line. If it did we would all look alike and think alike.
            
            Nature is constantly making changes. I believe survival is based on how well one can adapt to a changing world. I believe (C)onservatives by their very nature do not like change, politically or otherwise. Therefore, Make America Great Again.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Your (C)onservative is wrong. [C]onservatives do accept change, we just want beneficial change. We don't reject all change just because it is change. And we're not red-hat MAGA. We think America is already great.
               
               It is mostly Republican [c]onservatives that fit your description.  And it is mostly Democrat liberals that support changes both Cs think are damaging to our society.
               
               GA

               replyreport
         2. 93

            Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks for your extensive reply, has given me food for thought which I’ve been mulling over for the past day.
            
            Certainly, worldwide (including the UK) right-wing governments tend to be more anti LGBT and left-wing governments more pro LGBT.  And certainly in the late 1980s Margate Thatcher (then Conservative Prime Minister) did pass strict anti-LGBT laws (and there is a story behind that, which explains why she targeted the LGBT community).
            
            But over the past decade the Conservatives in Britain (not Northern Ireland) have become surprisingly pro-LGBT.
            
            For example, in 2005 the UK Labour (Socialist) Government legalised gay civil partnerships; then in 2014 the UK Government (Conservatives) legalised same sex marriage in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government (Socialist) passed the same laws at the same time; but same sex marriage was blocked by the DUP (a right-wing (Conservative) party) in Northern Ireland.
            
            However, due to an interesting twist of events, same sex marriage in Northern Ireland was finally legalised (against the wishes of DUP) by the UK Government in December 2019.
            
            For anyone who doesn’t know, as part of the Northern Ireland 1998 Peace Treaty (Good Friday Agreement) the political wings of the two opposing sides who fought each other in the 30 year civil war in Northern Ireland (from 1968 to 1998) now have to work together in a joint power sharing government, called the Northern Ireland Assembly – in spite of the fact that the two sides are chalk and cheese e.g. the Catholics are represented by Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRE), a staunch left-wing party that supports reunification of Ireland (Northern Ireland becoming part of the Republic of Ireland), and being left-wing are pro-LGBT; whereas the DUP (hard-right-wing party) represents the Protestants, and for Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK, and are very, very anti LGBT.
            
            In Jan 2017, because of a spat between Sinn Fein and DUP, Sinn Fein refused to sit in their power sharing government, which meant that under the Peace Treaty the governing of Northern Ireland passed to the UK Government.
            
            At the end of 2019 (almost three years later), Sinn Fein was ready to re-sit in the Northern Ireland Parliament, but the DUP were not; so in a desperate bid to try to get DUP to sit in the Northern Ireland Parliament, so that the elected Power Sharing Parliament could resume, the UK Government made a threat that if DUP did not resume the Northern Ireland Government by the end of 2019 that the UK (Conservative) Government would pass legislation legalising same sex marriages in Northern Ireland.   DUP did not take the bait, so same sex marriages was legalised in Northern Ireland in 2020.
            
            But, conversely, for the UK Conservative Government, with respect to transgender issue, the Scottish (socialist) Government has recently gone one step to far; specifically, earlier this year the Scottish (socialist) Government passed Scottish laws that does away with the requirement for medical diagnosis and evidence for anyone in Scotland applying for a ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’ which gives legal recognition of the persons acquired gender; and the Scottish (socialist) government lowered to age from 18 to 16 at which anyone can apply for a ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’.
            
            In response the UK Conservative Government has tried to block the new Scottish law, and currently to matter between the two governments is being fought-out in the Courts.
            
            Taking your points, and my above observations, into consideration; I think that one aspect that plays into all this is religion; specifically:-
            
            •    America is a Christian country with strong Christian values.
            
            •    Likewise, Northern Ireland is a very religious country, with 93% of the population being Christian; hence, contributing towards DUP’s staunch Christian values.
            
            •    Whereas mainland Britain is now a Secular Society, where the majority of people are not religious, and religion plays little part in British life.
            
            Of course, we also have judicial law in Britain (called the Gillick competent) that allows children of any age to seek free medical advice and treatment on the NHS, without their parents knowledge or consent, if they can satisfy their doctor that they are competent to make the decision e.g. a 13 year old can get free contraception on the NHS with their parents knowledge or consent; although the NHS will not issue hormone blockers to anyone under the age of 16.
            
            So how much role do you think religion plays in the American Conservative values and attitudes towards transgender issues?

            replyreport
            1. 93

               wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               "So how much role do you think religion plays in the American Conservative values and attitudes towards transgender issues?"
               
               Depends on on the issue.  If bathroom/dressing room usage, enormous influence.  The driving force.  If about teaching children, same thing. 
               
               But if the issue of the moment is transgenders playing sports with the sex they are not, then religion plays almost no part.  Same for transgenders requiring help from the military or prisons. 
               
               In a very general sense it boils down to sexual mores.  If the issue is about sex in any way, shape or form then it becomes a religious issue.  If not then it probably is not about religion.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  CC:Nathanville
                  
                  You pretty much nailed that answer. I would add a bit of nuance about a perspective that I see, and that is the difference between a [C]onservative and a Republican conservative. Your answer is my view of Republican conservatives, but it's not right for me, a non-party [C]conservative, and I think there are a lot of us. I bet there are even some 'closet' Democrat C's.
                  
                  Obviously, it's only my perception, (I didn't ask Google), but I think the C's have followed the national trend and become more secular. Our values are still ones formed in childhoods that were rooted in mostly Christian values. However, we don't hold those values because our religion tells us to, (or a party), we hold them because they are good values. And, because they aren't tied solely to religious edicts, they can be reconsidered if reasonably challenged.
                  
                  I don't think most Republican conservatives can do that. I think they fit your description and any change to those conservative values needs approval from somewhere, God or the party, to accept any change.
                  
                  Your sexual mores description was also spot on, maybe. I would say the gender-issue sex stuff is just as serious a 'core' issue for secular C's as it is for religion-driven Rc's. 'I know what a woman is, damn it! ' ;-)
                  
                  I also think the LGBT issues/crises have been reconsidered and accepted by most C's. Some are still asking too much but most of the important stuff; marriage, Rights, etc., have done well in Conservative circles.
                  
                  Not so much for Rc's. (Republican conservatives) Those liberal extremes that are pushing too far give those c's a valid perception that their core values of life, their way of life, are being attacked. This is a serious point that Democrat liberals refuse to see, and that pushes the Rc's into the trenches. There will be no reconsideration. I would be the same if one of my core values were being attacked as they see theirs.
                  
                  Because their conservative values are strongly religion-based, the silly stuff* like the bathroom issue and national leaders not saying what a woman is and a teacher talking to 1st graders about trans stuff, et al. As mentioned, even the big deals are met with closed minds, but might not have been slammed closed if the liberals hadn't overplayed their hand.
                  *silly stuff relative to the big picture of 'all'. I am sure it is very serious stuff for the 'few' that are part of it.
                  
                  This was too long. Just wanted to explain to the Brit that all conservatives aren't Republican-style conservatives. A discussion involving religious components always needs as much context and nuance as it can get.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 93

                     Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     Thanks for the detailed explanation; that gives me a better understanding
                     
                     It’s an interesting point you make, that in American society and politics “that all conservatives aren’t Republican-style conservatives”.   It’s not quite the same picture in Britain, in that the politicians elected to Parliament does reflect the wide spectrum of views and attitudes of the voters e.g. as in society, in the elected Conservative Party there’s a wide spectrum of conservatism from hard-right to soft-left:  The only real exception is the NHS e.g. the NHS doesn’t sit well with the Conservative Government because it’s pure ‘socialism’, but the NHS is loved by the vast majority of conservative voters – so the Conservative Government are stuck with ‘being seen’ to support the NHS, whether they like it or not.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        I have seen that 'varied representation' in British Parliament. It seems that even though you are primarily a 2-party nation, your parties seem to allow faction parties, i.e. your degrees of conservatives, to be strong enough to be needed by one side or the other.
                        
                        In the U.S. the two primary parties, (Rs & Ds), have strangled any legitimate 3rd party efforts. Perot was the most serious effort since the 1930s. He only got as far as splitting the Republicans, which helped the Democrats. The Republicans still haven't learned that lesson. 2024 will probably remind them. again.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           “The Republicans still haven't learned that lesson. 2024 will probably remind them. again.”
                           
                           I hope that they continue to fail to learn “it” which will be to their detriment in  ‘24.

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              That is a hope that you should have because as soon as they do they will have a much bigger tent.
                              
                              Another disaster in '24 might do the trick. A Republican party that can be seen by moderates as a reasonable and responsible party will be hard to beat. Especially if the Democrats don't reign in some of their extremist voices.
                              
                              2028 is probably the soonest we will get a hint. Maybe the '26 mid-terms.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                 Republican,  rightwing conservative types tend to not learn a lesson, rather they would prefer to double down on the same platform that failed them before. A moderate Republican Party? Maybe by the time Elon Musk sets foot on Mars.......
                                 
                                 We will both be watching...

                                 replyreport
                        2. 93

                           Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Where you say “….British Parliament….primarily a 2-party nation….” that’s true to the point that since 1945 it’s been predominately either Labour (socialists) or Conservatives who have formed a Government; but not always with a majority, for example:-
                           
                           •    1977 to 1979:  A Labour (socialist) and Liberal (centralist) coalition Government.
                           
                           •    2010 to 2015:  A Conservative (capitalist) and Liberal Democratic (centralist) coalition Government.
                           
                           •    2017 to 2019:  A Conservative (right-wing) and DUP Party (hard-right-wing) coalition Government.
                           
                           In a coalition in Britain, the minor party hold the balance of power, in that without their support the Government would collapse, leading to another General Election.  So during a coalition the minor party wields considerable power.
                           
                           When it comes to the General Election it’s not a straight fight between Labour and Conservative; there are many other parties to choose from, for examples:-
                           
                           1.    In the 2010 General Election when the Conservatives didn’t win enough seats to form a Government on their own the share of the votes for the three main parties were:-
                           
                           •    36.1% of the votes to Conservatives
                           •    29% of the votes to Labour, and
                           •    23% of the votes to the Liberal Democrats
                           
                           2.    In Scotland the SNP (Scottish National Party) currently have:-
                           
                           •    45 of the 59 seats in the UK Parliament, and
                           •    64 of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament e.g. the Scottish Parliament is currently an SNP/Green Party coalition Government.
                           
                           3.    In Northern Ireland, neither Labour nor the Conservatives ever win any seats; the two major parties in Northern Ireland are Sinn Fein (hard left wing) and DUP (hard right wing).
                           
                           4.    The main contender in Wales is the Plaid Cymru (socialist national party), but currently they only have 10% of the Welsh seats in the UK Parliament.
                           
                           Of the 60 seats in the Welsh Government:-
                           
                           •    30 seats to Labour
                           •    16 seats to Conservatives, and
                           •    13 seats to Plaid Cymru
                           
                           So currently it’s a coalition Government in Wales between Labour and Plaid Cymru.
                           
                           When it comes to Local Government Elections it’s an entirely different picture e.g. the Labour Party, Green Party and the Liberal Democrats tend to do rather well in local elections and the Conservatives less well.  For example in Bristol where I live it’s a currently a coalition local government between Labour and the Green Party, number of elected seats required for a working majority is 36 e.g. 70 seats in total, and the current seats held are as follows:-
                           
                           •    24 seats to Green Party.
                           •    24 seats to Labour.
                           •    14 seats to Conservatives.
                           •    6 seats to Liberal Democrats, and
                           •    2 Independent seats
                           
                           But getting back to your main point, where you’ve observed that in British politics our “parties seem to allow faction parties”.  Yeah, both the Labour and Conservative parties are described as being a “broad church” e.g. representing a wide spectrum of left and right wing politics respectively; which often leads to in-fighting within the parties and it also means that in a General Election if one side or the other wins just a small majority e.g. a majority of just a 12 seats, then that party struggles to get its policies through Parliament because either one side or the other of the party in Government will rebel against its own Government on the more controversial issues – and sometimes the Government will try to seek support from individual politicians in the opposition party to get a specific bill though parliament – all fun and games.
                           
                           Also, under the British Constitution the Opposition get 20 Opposition days per year, 17 given to Labour (as the 2nd largest Party in Parliament), and currently 3 days to the SNP (as the 3rd largest party in Parliament).  It allows the opposition parties to set the agenda of debate for the day, and sometimes that will lead to a non-controversial Bill being introduced to Parliament that the Government doesn’t oppose. 
                           
                           Then there’s the ‘Private Member’s Bills’, where any politician in the House of Commons or House of Lords, from any political party, can add a bill to the waiting list, and about 4 of them are considered by Parliament for about 5 hours on a Friday – most fail due to the lack of time, but a lot do pass the first vote, and eventually become law; for example in 2022 a Labour MP introduced the ‘British Sign Language Bill’, which got cross party support and became law - British Sign Language Act of 2022 puts ‘British Sign Language’ on the same legal status as the Welsh and Sottish spoken/written languages.
                           
                           So although our politics in the UK span a wider political spectrum (from hard left socialism to hard right politics) than USA politics which only covers a smaller political spectrum from what would be called centralist to hard right, although there are fractions within the large parties that can lead to in-fighting within the parties, there seems to be a greater degree of co-operation between the political parties in Britain than in the USA e.g. the cross-party select committees in Parliament work together very effectively.
                           
                           What are select committees?  https://youtu.be/cTtP39bLYBg

                           replyreport
                     2. 78

                        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Regardless of GAs delineating of differing brands of conservatives and conservatism, the only real definition is found among those in political power, that is where the yardstick is most appropriately applied.

                        replyreport
                        1. 91

                           peoplepower73posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Cred: I agree with you.  They are the influencers with the power to cause change.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              Thanks, Mike, it is nice that we see eye to eye on this one.

                              replyreport
                        2. 93

                           Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           That makes sense; although I’m still trying to get my head around the concept (as described by GA) that the views of the elected Republicans don’t reflect the broad range of views of the conservative voters putting them in power!   In Britain if a political party isn’t in tune with its voters the voters will do a protest vote e.g. the Liberal Democrats lost half their seats in the 2015 General Election in protest because the vast majority of Liberal voters felt strongly that in the 2010 General Election the Liberal Democrats should have formed a coalition Government with Labour, not the Conservatives.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              Ah, Fiddlesticks, Arthur. I look at it as an alligator and crocodile attempting to distinguish itself from one another yet they swim within the same swamp.
                              
                              A parliamentary system would have as a benefit parties that are more closely aligned with the views of it supporters. As it is here, we always have to settle for the lesser of two evils, with only 2 viable political parties.

                              replyreport
                              1. 93

                                 Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                 Yeah, a two party system, as in the USA, lacks real choice for the voters; whereas across Europe, including the UK we have a multitude of parties to choose from, which keeps the politicians on their toes – and adds extra dimension to the election campaigns, for example:-
                                 
                                 •    Protest votes, where for example conservative voter might vote Liberal Democrat to show displeasure in their own party.
                                 
                                 •    Tactical voting, where for example Labour voter might vote Liberal Democrat because that the best chance they have of preventing a Conservative victory in their Constituency.
                                 
                                 •    Split votes, where for example a Conservative wins the seat with just 35% of the votes because the left vote is split between Labour and the Green Party.
                                 
                                 •    And occasionally (on rare occasions):  Alliance between opposition parties in a particular seat e.g. all the opposition parties in that Constituency agreeing upon just one candidate standing (for one of the opposition parties) to unite the opposition vote, so as to ensure for example that the Conservatives don’t win that seat.
                                 
                                 One political party of notoriety in British elections is the ‘Monster Raving Loony Party’ (for people who are fed up with politics).  Not surprisingly, the Monster Raving Loony Party has never won a seat in a General Election, but they have won seats in local government elections; they currently have 7 elected local government politicians in England, and in the past, two mayors – the Monster Raving Loony Party’s first election victory in local government elections was in 1991, when they took a ‘safe’ Conservative seat in East Devon. 
                                 
                                 This video is of the election results in Theresa May’s Constituency when she was Prime Minister, which includes the votes for the Monster Raving Loony Party:  https://youtu.be/Fl2YniMKpas
                                 
                                 The Monster Raving Loony Party Election Manifesto:  https://youtu.be/s7W6uS53M14
                                 
                                 Getting onto more serious matters, the Green Party does very well in local government elections, winning lots of seats; but so far they only have just one seat in the UK Parliament, but nevertheless it’s an important seat in that any cross-party select committee that covers ‘green issues’ the Green MP is always invited to participate in, which in turn influences Government policies on ‘Green’ matters e.g. Environment and Global Warming etc.
                                 
                                 Green Party General Election Win:  https://youtu.be/4PBiely7GAs
                                 
                                 The only constituency where people don’t have a real choice in voting is the ‘Speakers Constituency’.  As you may or may not know, the Speaker is an elected politician (MP) in the House of Commons who is elected by his or her fellow MPs to be Speaker (regardless to politics), and as such the speaker’s role is to be impartial (apolitical) – And by ‘tradition’ when it comes to a General Election, all the other main parties don’t stand in opposition to the speaker in that Constituency (which I think is quite British)!  The Speaker of the House of Commons: https://youtu.be/EqGoJN-zNXk

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    DrMark1961posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                    You do realize they have all those parties in the US too, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ted_States The problem there i no one votes for them and just picks one of the two main parties.
                                    
                                    Well, they have a lot of parties but maybe no Monster Raving Loony party. I got a nice laugh out of that one. There are some Trumpists and Wokeists that would find a nice home there.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 93

                                       Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                       Yep, I do know that the USA does have many other political parties, and that no one really votes for them because almost everyone votes for just the two many parties - which is sad.
                                       
                                       Perhaps the Monster Raving Loony Party would do well in USA elections?

                                       report
               2. 93

                  Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the clarification

                  replyreport
            2. 78

               Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Americans Christianity is more of an interest group then any bonifide belief in the scriptures and their true meaning.
               
               Religion, its advocates and such dominate Republican Party politics today and as such, the religious right and the standard American conservative remain virtually inseparable.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  Nathanvilleposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the clarity, it is the impression I got from my American friend in New York; which is quite radically different to conservatism and the Conservative Party in Britain e.g. regardless to politics, people in general are just not that religious in Britain anymore, in fact the majority are not religious at all; so moral values in Britain are not based on religion, but based on humanitarianism; which is quite ironic, when you consider that 25 of the unelected politicians in the House of Lords are Church of England Bishops, and the King is the ‘Head’ of the Church of England and the State (Parliament)!

                  replyreport
2. 93

   wildernessposted 14 months ago

   Not sure what the "compromise" was - to delay restroom use by males in an effort to "equalize" things?
   
   Insanity.  Our government has gone insane, and that appears to be the future of our country and it's young'uns.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Yep, but we're the past, we're too old for this stuff.
      
      However, simply because it's a dinosauric view doesn't make it wrong or outdated. Hopefully, character and personal strength will still be valued in the next generations. My criticism is the way that character growth is being molded now. Issues like this lack of courage to make a decision isn't a positive character influencer.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Character growth cannot happen (or any other form of growth) as long as the lowest common denominator is the desired and demanded result.
         
         Which is where we are at now as a culture and as a nation.  The lowest point is what we strive for in the insanity of forever trying to make all the same.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            In the eyes of the law, we are all supposed to be treated the same despite superficial differences.
            
            Is that the true conservative foundation that some are more equal than others?

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               Huh?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Equal but Different is not a legitimate consideration?
                  Girls have beautiful ceramic toilets and boys have beautiful ceramic urinals.
                  Different but equal, based on function.
                  
                  Now, if a boy decides he is a girl, he would be happy to sit down on a toilet.
                  But he might not want to change with the girls.
                  ... or would he???

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     The problem with conservatives is their assumption that being different is to be inherently unequal.
                     
                     Because their anatomical circumstances are different, the necessary accommodations does not relflect on the equality to be enjoyed by either side.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        do go on!!!!    

                        replyreport
                     2. 93

                        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        And the problem with liberals is that they think we can somehow ignore the laws of biology and physics and make people different but "equal" (whatever that term means at the moment).

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Another misunderstanding, we don't ignore biology and physics, but does your assessment of biology mean that women are to be forever relegated to the kitchen or can't fly fighter jets? There is a certain amount of misogyny associated with Trumpian rightwing thought today.
                           
                           Are the "differences" conservatives always talk about possibly used as an excuse?

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              No, it means that people are different and all the assumptions, claims and pleading in the world are not going to change that.
                              
                              I will leave it to you to claim that women should be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                 No one is not arguing that people are not different. I am saying that conservatives tend to use superficial differences to distinguish between people, denying rights and privileges based on their perception "justified" distinctions. History is rife with example after example.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                                    And I'm saying that liberals tend to take deep, definite differences and pretend they aren't there or that they will quietly vanish into the night if we just pour enough money into it.  Liberals pretend that we can make apples out of oranges if we just try.  That we can turn a pumpkin into a carriage if we just spend enough.  That we just have to find that glass slipper to make a scullery maid into a princess.

                                    replyreport
                     3. 87

                        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Now you're being silly. Your thoughts about what conservatives are, or believe, are presumptuous, and generally wrong. There may be some conservatives that think different means inferior, but I think most of us simply think different means different.
                        
                        Your close is a chuckle. Which anatomical circumstance is more enjoyable, sitting on a toilet or standing at a urinal? Are boys superior because they can stand at a urinal, and sit on a toilet? Are girls denied equality because they can't?
                        
                        Does removing the urinals make them equal? What about trans boys that view urinals as a sign of equality, now you have dissed them because they don't have the male equality to stand and pee. That might be a big deal for them.
                        
                        Silly merits silly. You address an issue about the harm of ball-less decision-makers with a rationalization about the inequality of 'enjoyment' due to "anatomical circumstances."
                        
                        And you blame that on conservatives. Geez Louise Cred.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           "There may be some conservatives that think different means inferior"
                           
                           Not so silly, far many more of you conservatives types would believe that than would admit to it.
                           
                           As I told you before, I believe that the arrangements in the bathrooms should stay unchanged. It is regrettable that something so basic can now be so controversial.
                           
                           That is my opinion.

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              "Not so silly, far many more of you conservatives types would believe that than would admit to it."
                              
                              Silly claims are so much the better for proof, don't you think?  Although said proof so often only exhibits just how silly they are...

                              replyreport
            2. 93

               wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               I did not say "treated the same": I said "make all the same" - same end point in other words.  There is a whole world of difference in the two.
               
               But even in your utopian world, the law not only does not require all to be treated the same, it requires that they be treated differently.  Just think about treating a genius level child the exact same as a Downs child, for instance.  And then think about it as that child ages into adulthood.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  I was having such a splendid Sunday morning until I have to gird myself to fight through a rightwing mob, but I will do my best.
                  
                  Good, I mean "treat the same", a misunderstanding.
                  
                  Treated the same relative to opportunity and ability.... we are not all going the have the same outcomes, because people are different. But the very basis and foundation of bias that conservatives usually cling to more fervently are that those differences can be defined only in superficial ways.

                  replyreport
            3. 84

               Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

               What ?  So is it acceptable to take a urinal from males that may prefer to use one?   I guess those men are just out of luck...  If a transgender person does not want to use urine open a stall door close it, and have at it.
               
               I will stop there, no one needs to endure what I am really thinking about this subject.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  No, it is not. I am not justifying any of this. Yes, I am a liberal and a strident one at that, but that does not mean that I subscribe to every little peccadillo out there.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     My apology, I certainly took your comments out of context.

                     replyreport
                  2. 93

                     wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     I'm sorry, but while this specific case is indeed peccadillo (although not so much to the people that will now waste hours each year waiting), the underlying theme is NOT peccadillo.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        I am sorry, too. You are right about this, it is not minor for many.

                        replyreport
                        1. 87

                           GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Following your "indecision' thought. this thought is the point of the OP.
                           
                           The serious issue isn't about bathrooms or gender-related controversies, it is about leaders that aren't leaders, they're just managers. They won't do anything their boss won't do.
                           
                           Just as descriptors, it boils down to harm for the many to the benefit of the few. Sometimes that may be the correct decision. Most of the time it probably isn't.
                           
                           So somebody has to decide. All of these different 'peccadillos' that divide conservatives and liberals will keep on dividing until someone makes a decision. Even if it's a wrong decision, it will be better than no decision.
                           
                           The highest leaders won't even say what a woman is, (hold on, that's become a buzzphrase, but it doesn't make it less true), or what bathroom a boy or girl should use. Look where that has landed us, now even small-town officials are affected, (infected was so tempting ;-) ), and reach for compromises that won't require a decision.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              Following your "indecision' thought. this thought is the point of the OP.
                              
                              The serious issue isn't about bathrooms or gender-related controversies, it is about leaders that aren't leaders, they're just managers. They won't do anything their boss won't do.
                              --------
                              Is that not the reality of this society, from a school district to Washington DC, itself? No one can nor will come to any consensus about any of the issues of the day. If I were an employee, would I really do anything that my boss would not do, and expect to keep my job? If I can't get that from highly paid legislators how can I expect it from members representing a school district?
                              
                              Everything requires consensus and compromise. I would have that than any one person being able to make edicts on his or her own.

                              replyreport
                           2. 93

                              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                              You're right - this "compromise" is no compromise at all; it is nothing more than a sad attempt at appeasing a few loud voices and shutting them up.
                              
                              As such it won't work, and only a fool will think it would - those voices are not going to go away because some urinals were changed to toilets.  On the other hand the harm cause is considerable, both in lack of leadership an in the actual results that will be accomplished.

                              replyreport
               2. 87

                  GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  If I assume the subject you are talking about is the gender issue, you are thinking about the wrong issue. The extremes of both sides are driving crazy 'equality' claims. It is simply another controversial issue to deal with.
                  
                  The issue to keep thinking about are the leadership decisions being made, or not made, and the effect they have on the character formation of the kids living through their results.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     Oh My --- "New Hampshire students protest urinal ban in gender debate"
                     
                     I took your opening as a very much subject about gender.  Yes, it is apparent we are not doing the younger generation a favor, IMO. Just went to the heart of the gender bathroom problem.  Could have kept it light, and airy, my bad.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                        Yeah, that would qualify as clickbait if it had been the headline. ;-)
                        
                        It's probably certain that we have similar views on the trans and gender bathroom controversies, and that if on those topics we would offer the same criticisms.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                           Pulling your stings, It is clear I should have read the context of your comment more clearly.

                           replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      +1000000000

      replyreport
3. 75

   Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago

   1. A new (high?)school policy is proposed in order to restrict the occupancy in every bathroom and locker room to one person per stall and one person per changing area.
   The purpose of the policy is to prevent others from beholding another person's (actual) private parts / (true) anatomical identity /(real) gender.
   
   2. Instead, the district comes up with an alternate plan to simply ban urinals. (Basically, males and females would have to use toilets ... and what would be the cost of replacing urinals with toilets?)
   
   3. In response to not having what they are used to in an institutional setting, (beautiful ceramic urinals,) more than 24 of boys walked out of school. (After all, urinals are quick and easy to use and masculinity affirming, as well.)
   
   Good for them! Let them have a free day or more for a change. Who needs highschool anyway? They can learn on the internet anything they want, whenever they want, for whatever reasons/ambitions/interests they have. Who needs the nut-cases that are in charge of schools, who seem to be purposefully causing havoc these days?
   
   I mean, REALLY!

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "and what would be the cost of replacing urinals with toilets"
      
      Considerable.  The cost of the toilets, of course, and the stalls to enclose them.  The urinals must be removed, and the wall covering as well to expose the plumbing behind.  All of that, and any electrical (many urinals are auto-flush with electrical service) as well.  All plumbing must be redone as it cannot be used for a toilet.  The floor must be cut out and new plumbing installed in the floor.  Only then can new toilets and stalls be installed.  At a guess the cost would be well over $1,000 per toilet installed...all so boys can wait in the hall instead of relieving themselves and proceeding to class.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      In my view,  This has to do with privacy to go to the bathroom. Many women as well as men prefer the right to privacy while using the bathroom.
      
      It would appear our rights could be violated in that respect. If some feel they want to usher in gender neutrality bathrooms, to support their ideology, maybe they better come up with another alternative  ---  supply them with this form of a restroom.  Just call it "one for all" Hey, have at it.
      
      Many women and I would imagine men like the status quo. It is so odd, that some can ignore many others' wishes, and feel justified in doing so.

      replyreport
4. 78

   Credence2posted 14 months ago

   To add to this discussion
   
   I had an experience with this while federally employed at a Denver Federal facility back in 1994.
   
   We had a fellow that had recently got a sex change to a female. I knew him or her personally and told him that I thought that it would have been wise for him to find another agency or branch to work as the attention he/her was receiving was entirely negative.
   
   The managers had to deal with the bathroom issue. The women did not want him/her in their restroom as the men had the same atttitude. So where does he/her go to relieve him/herself?
   
   They created a unisex bathroom with a lock to accomodate this individual. It may well prove an impractical solution to accomodate many in today's environment but it may help explain the extent of the indecisiveness as there is always much to consider.

   replyreport