Catholic School Student Suspended For Protesting Trans Bathroom Policy
For context, the details aren't the point, the action is. That the student appears to be an activist is only important relative to what is claimed and reported to be his 'bullying' behavior: whether it was as innocent as the student claims or as strident as his background might indicate.
It appears—from multiple sources, that the student said (insisted, claimed, pronounced?), in an open classroom discussion, that there are only two genders. Two transgender students objected to the offensive statement.
The school suspended the student for bullying. That is the point: a religious school took action against a student saying what the religion claims to believe.
Source: Canadian Catholic school student who was suspended for protesting transgender bathroom policy speaks out
GAAll I can say is that given it’s a religious school, and the student was supporting religious dogma, then the school is being quite progressive – which as an atheist and humanitarianist, I see as a good thing.
I was careless in the OP. I didn't consider that my example would naturally lead to a religious discussion. My intended point was about the effect of political influence on core values. The negative effect of over-compensation.
That point covers both 'sides.' This one happens to involve conservatives, others involve liberals.
The point that makes-or-breaks the thought of the OP is the physical science truth that there are two genders. (with rare instances of anomalies) And there is the developing field of psychological science truth that says there are multiple gender identities.
With the understanding that "gender" and "gender identity" are different things, I agree with both 'science' truths. If that isn't a point of common ground, then we're stuck.
GAThanks for the clarity - Yes you are absolutely right, there is a distinct difference between "gender" and "gender identity".
Perhaps we just all need to recognize and accept that our language is insufficient to the task at this point. Yes, there are two sexes, and only two sexes. And yes, psychologically there can be many "genders"...as long as we all recognize that "gender" does not refer to sex.
Otherwise we need a new term to point to the psychology of how we "feel" as opposed to what we "are". I leave it to others to create that term, but if we're going to continue to mean "sex" when we say "gender", and pretend that we don't know the new definition, then a new term is necessary.Sort of like Global warming to Climate change to Climate crisis? Or the CRT that isn't CRT?
We have new terms: gender identity and transgender. Both qualify the basic term "gender." For most folks, those terms work. They understand what they mean. Sex and gender are defined as the same thing. That they have other meanings—dependent on use, doesn't change their common-usage meaning.
New terms probably won't change either side's mind. Euphemisms are evasions.
GA
As I type Nat, you are adamantly and simultaneously attempting to make the case for science when it comes to climate change crisis, in another forum discussion.....while completely dismissing the science in this case, referring to the scientific fact that there are but two genders, as "religious dogma"
Care to explain.GA clarified the point in his reply to me above e.g. that there is a distinct difference between "gender" and "gender identity".
That's nice, but I need a little more clarity.
With this comment are you agreeing that there are only two genders and that "religious dogma" only enters in, when gender identity is being questioned?
If that's the case, are you also suggesting that there is no longer (or there has never been) any room for reason, common sense, wisdom...clarity? Are those human qualities considered religious dogma, as well?What more is there to say! Basically, some forms of Christianity including the Catholic Church tend to take the bible literally (Biblical literalism); as opposed to others, like the Church of England, that take the bible figuratively or metaphorically.
With the former there is little or no tolerance for LGBT (which is what I call religious dogma), whereas in the latter there is greater latitude for LGBT e.g. on the 9th Feb 2023 the Church of England voted to allow the blessing of ‘same sex couples’ in church.
"All I can say is that given it’s a religious school, and the student was supporting religious dogma, then the school is being quite progressive – which as an atheist and humanitarianist, I see as a good thing."
Yes, and that would be your right as a thinking human being able to choose and travel your own path and share your ideologies.
This young man clearly was sharing the science of the matter, as well as his religious beliefs. You have shared you find religion a form of dogma. This young man apparently feels his religious beliefs are important, and he values them.
Science tells us we have two genders, and yes in society we have those that depart from what is the norm and feel they identify more with being the opposite gender they were biologically born. In my view, this is their right.
In this case, perhaps the school should have pulled all involved into the principal office and explained the meaning of human rights... Both sides have them, and both sides need to realize neither sets precedence over the other.
As a Catholic, I believe we have two genders. This young man has the right to believe what not only science tells him, but his religion tells him.
In my view, he also had the right to bring his thoughts into an open classroom discussion. As did, the two young men had the right to share their thoughts on gender identity.For clarity, I am not say that ‘religion is a form of dogma’, I was just referencing the fact that some religions, like the Catholic Church, tend to take the bible literally (Biblical literalism), and therefore have little or no tolerance for LGBT; while other religions, like the Church of England take the bible figuratively or metaphorically, allowing a much greater latitude towards accepting LGBT.
A prime example being that on the 9th Feb 2023 the Church of England voted to allow the blessing of ‘same sex couples’ in church; something which I imagine will be less likely to happen in the Catholic Church.
As a woman, I can see why a man would see that as a good thing. I find it sad that, instead of tackling the problem of gender stereotypes, we've decided to pretend that traits determine what sex we are. I was there when women were liberated. This toxic and patriarchal belief that men are women and can push their private parts into our spaces, dominate our sports and claim they are us is depressing.
Although I am a happily married heterosexual, our family has close ties with the LGBT community; some of our closest friends, male & female are gay – So my perception of gay’s rights is going to be somewhat different to yours.
Gay and trans are dissimilar. To imply that not wanting a male in a female bathroom is somehow anti gay means you are hoping to create an association that doesn't exist.
LGBT is not just Lesbian and Gay; LGBT is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender – so I don’t understand your comment?
To elaborate on my previous statement, when I said “some of our closest friends, male & female are gay” I was a bit sloppy with grammar; to be more precise, I should have said gay and lesbian; and it’s not just gays and lesbians in our ‘circle of friends’, we also know a couple of trans (transgender) – one is female from Denmark, born male; and the other is male, born female, who is happily married to a female.
So as I previously said “my perception of gay’s rights is going to be somewhat different to yours”; although to be grammatically correct I should say “my perception of LGBT rights is going to be somewhat different to yours”.
Are your views based on fear or prejudice, if the former then wouldn’t a lesbian sharing a public toilet with you be as much as a threat as a Transgender?
Also, with your views you would feel very uncomfortable if you ever toured France on holiday (vacation), like we’ve done for decades. Some of the towns we’ve visited in France on holiday (vacation) have unisex public toilets, and some of those have included urinals so that the women have to walk pass the urinals to get to the cubicles.
In other towns we’ve visited in France public toilets have been open air single cubicles in the street with no door, so the user (male or female) gets little privacy from passing pedestrians.
And of course the pièce de résistance has to be the open air urinals in the streets of Paris, overlooking the river: https://youtu.be/LCiY9VGd90wFunny how some people work their conversations that way, isn't it?
Creating an association that doesn't exist.
Shifting the meaning, in this case, for example, having an issue with Trans being allowed in women's bathrooms/showers... and you adding in response "our family has close ties with the LGBT community; some of our closest friends, male & female are gay "
What you did, is lump the person's distrust/dislike of men (transgenders) being allowed in women's bathrooms into the whole LGBTQ community and shifting the focus to gays in particular.
In essence shifting the topic from having an issue with men who want to pretend to be women, to having issue with all LGBTQ issues and gays in particular.
And it happens all the time, with all sorts of issues, I'm sure I'm guilty of it myself, but some make a habit of it.What is a “person’s distrust/dislike of a transgender women (who used to be a men) from being allowed in women’s public toilets" if it isn’t an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) issue?
Following this discussion; it is a point that, in most discussions between 'liberals' and 'conservatives', should start with your question.
It appears that Ken's conservative view is that addressing one segment of the whole isn't addressing every segment of the whole. All of the segments make the whole, but the whole is not each of the segments. That makes sense to me. Opposition to this transgender issue, whether in sports or bathrooms, has no direct connection to the other 'segment' issues.
Generally, I also have the same conservative perspective: the segments are separate issues, and the 'liberal'* perspective is that only the whole exists. Your phrasing of ". . . if it isn’t an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) issue?", to me, strongly supports this conservative perception.
*give me a break on the labeling, you know it's a very broad and general descriptor
Why can't the segments be considered separate from the whole?
GAThe reason the segments can't be considered separate from the whole is that there seems to be a strong homophobic attitude against transgender women using women’s public toilets in the USA. As far as I know, no one in this forum has given a reason why transgender women can’t use women’s public toilets other than the fact that they used to be male; which to me seems to be a homophobic attitude.
Girls and women consider a public restroom as a safe space. If a person with a penis can go into a bathroom with young females it is no longer a safe space.
That is not homophobic. The rapist in your country that declared he was a woman and demanded to be locked up in the womans prison is an example of why so many people are against that type of behavior.
That is not homophobia. That is allowing women the right to have a safe space. Anyone that is against that is not in favor of women having rights.Thanks for your response, a candid reply that I can appreciate. However, if we were talking about transsexuals rather than transgender would you still have objection?
Yep, the case in Scotland is that of Isla Bryson, formally Adam Graham. If you research the details of the case Adam Graham was a married man (married in 2016) when he violently raped two women, one in 2016 and the other in 2019; his wife has been trying to diverse Adam Graham ever since his first rape victim.
Adam Graham was a man when we raped the two women e.g. he wasn’t claiming or pretending to be transgender at the time of the two rapes. It was only when he was convicted of the two rapes that he then claimed to be transgender; and his wife believes he is faking his gender identity to try to get an easier time in prison after being convicted of rape.No, if male is trans, and no longer hás male anatômical features, I do not know many people here that would be against It. They have been using womens restrooms here for over 20 years and it has never been an issue until recently.
The problem more recently, and the reason that this is now a political issue, is men who claim to be women are using that as an excuse to invade a safe space.Thanks for your frank reply; it satisfies any concerns I had of unjust prejudices. And I hope you are right that others on your side of the pond shares similar views.
I have a question for you Nat, here in the states, many biological female athletes have been told to leave their locker rooms if they are aren't comfortable with a biological male athlete {identifying as female} using the facilities. Many of these female athletes are choosing to use public restrooms for changing, etc. (not sure if showers are available in the public restrooms)
In your opinion is this a fair practice, for everyone involved?A fair question: I know that if I gave a straight answer it would be biased because I’m a Brit, a socialist and have a number of LGBT friends.
Therefore before answering I wanted to be clearer on what the British perspective is in relations to laws, rules and regulations and public opinion; so for the last couple of days (between doing DIY projects) I’ve done some extensive research from a wide range of reliable sources – and in conclusion there isn’t a simple answer, it’s not a black and white issue.
As regards UK laws and regulation, currently it all hinges on:-
• The Equality Act 2010, passed by Labour (socialist) Government, and
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued non-statutory guidance published in April 2022.
Equality and Human Rights Commission is an independent Government body created by the UK Conservative Government in 2007 e.g. a Government body that is not answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only.
The current UK Conservative Government doesn’t as yet have any clear policy on the issue:-
In Nov 2020 a Cross-party Select Committee (made up of politicians from all the main political parties) looked into this subject, and published their report, which under the British Constitution the Government has to respond to within a given time frame.
Some of the extracts from that (rather lengthy) report included:-
• People should be free to dress, behave, and live as they wish. At the point where rights conflict and their wishes have a negative impact on others, rules and laws are needed.
• Clarification is needed to provide organisation with the confidence and courage to use the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act as it stands, to know that it is fair and reasonable to provide female-only facilities, and that it is lawful and not discriminatory to exclude males from them, no matter how those males identify.
• Are the provisions in the Equality Act for the provision of single-sex and separate-sex spaces and facilities in some circumstances clear and useable for service providers and service users? If not, is reform or further guidance needed?
• Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed? The Equality Act already protects self-identifying trans people from discrimination. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not require a medical diagnosis, a GRC, or any medical intervention or body changes.
The last point, in reference to GRC (gender recognition certificate) is interesting, and one which recently caused further friction between the UK Conservative Government and the Scottish (socialist) Government.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004, passed by Labour (socialist) Government in 2004 allows transgender people to legally change their gender, rather than just saying they are transgender. In order for the GRC certificate to be issues, a Gender Recognition Panel, including medical and legal experts, considers evidence submitted to it to assess whether the criteria for issuing a Gender Recognition Certificate have been met, and part of the evidence must show a documented mental health diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Earlier this year the Scottish (Socialist) Government passed a law in Scotland that would have allowed transgender people to get a GRC certificate without the need of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria; the UK Conservative Government promptly blocked that law in the courts.
In October 2022 the UK Government posted a ‘consultation’ paper on the subject, usually a prelude to forming Government policy. The opening sentence to that consolation paper was:-
“Most sports are separated into male and female sex categories based on the large sports performance gap between male and female athletes. Transgender people have a gender identity that differs from their sex registered at birth. The current debate in elite sports is based on how to include transgender athletes in categories that align with their gender identity, while maintaining fairness in competition.”
Section 195 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 creates a general exemption to enable sporting organisations to discriminate on grounds of sex in relation to sporting activity and provides that sports can be lawfully segregated where an activity is ‘affected by gender’. Gender affected activity is defined as follows:
‘A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.’
In April 2022, to try to clarify the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued non-statutory guidance on the provision of separate and single-sex services. In essence the EHRC reiterated the law by stating:
“The provision of single-sex services can be a particular issue within sports clubs with changing facilities, with sports providers having to balance obligations around equality. However, trans athletes should only be excluded where it is a necessary step to ensure the competition is fair and/or that the other competitors are safe. It may therefore be lawful to restrict participation of trans athletes in some sports but not in others.
As regards British public opinion (2022), some of the result will be no surprise to you, but others might surprise you.
Before listing the results, several points of interest, that came out of the survey include:-
• 33% of Brits personally know a transgender person, and the same survey results show that the “more closely Britons know a transgender person, the more likely they are to support greater transgender rights”.
• In Britain, “women are more likely than men to support greater rights for transgender people”; and
• It should go without saying that the younger Britons are, the more likely they are to support greater transgender rights than older people.
The full data would be too much to publish here, so just a summary of the main survey results:-
55% of Brits (71% of Labour (socialist) voters, and 41% of Conservative voters) feel that “People should be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one they had recorded at birth”
25% of Brits feel that “People should not be able to identify as being of a different gender to the one they had recorded at birth”
16% of Brits feel that transgender women should be allowed to take part in women’s sporting events.
61% of Brits feel that transgender woman should not be allowed to take part in women’s sporting events.
Brit’s attitude on transgender people being allowed to use facilities for their preferred gender:-
Using women’s/men’s changing rooms:-
• In Britain, 28% of men and 40% of women are favour for Transgender women using women changing rooms
• 50% of men and 37% of women are not in favour for Trans women using women changing rooms
• 40% of Brits in favour for Trans men using men’s changing rooms
• 36% of Brits not in favour for Trans men using men’s changing rooms.
Using women’s/men’s public toilets:-
• In Britain, 31% of men and 45% of women are in favour of Trans women using women’s toilets
• 48% of men and 34% of women are not in favour for Trans women using women’s toilets
• 42% of Brits in favour of Trans men using men’s toilets
• 34% of Brits not in favour of Trans men using men’s toilets.
Safe Houses for abused women in Britain:
32% of men and 45% of women feel that transwomen should be allowed to use these facilities
43% of men and 30% of women feel that transwomen should not be allowed to use these facilities.
On reflection, it’s a complex subject where there are no simple answers, and thus, it doesn’t matter what decision are made it’s not going to be a fair practice for everyone involved. The best we can ask for is for a greater understanding from all sides to break down barriers and allay many of the fears and taboos.
What we need is a judgement of Solomon!
I agree, if someone no longer has male anatomical features, accepting their change is probably not an issue to most women, to include access to "safe spaces".
The risk of rape, the doubt that they may be 'faking it', would not be there.Not sure you are correct; I suspect you are minimizing the feelings and demands of the religious zealots (of which there are a lot in the US) when it comes to anything even close to sexual matters.
Many will tell you that such a person is a male, and that it is sinful to be in the same area. They may well suggest that the transgender is attempting to take others away from God.
Insufficient knowledge or experience to make a call or even an opinion here.But now we are talking about people's feelings and prejudices and beliefs.
And we are talking far less about risk and threat.
As someone said above, they would flip out if a guy whipped out his junk in front of her grand-daughters in a women's restroom.
There is no risk of that occurring if they no longer have junk to whip out.
"As far as I know, no one in this forum has given a reason why transgender women can’t use women’s public toilets other than the fact that they used to be male; which to me seems to be a homophobic attitude."
Probably because they don't like males in the women's bathroom. Do not forget that "transgender women" = "male", not female. Pretending otherwise is just that; pretense without truth.In the minds of genuine transgender women it’s not “pretence without truth”; have you personally known any Trans, I have.
However, DrMark gave a candid response that in my reply to him raises the question: “If we were talking about transsexuals rather than transgender would you still have objections?”
That explanation doesn't work for me. It reads, once again, to me, that your reasoning stems from a biased-formed perception, e.g. "there seems to be a strong homophobic attitude" and "to me seems to be a homophobic attitude." That's not reasoned support.
It appears that one could fully support the alphabet of LGBTQQIA+? all the way up to the second Q and be deemed homophobic for not agreeing with that Q.
I do see the references to bathrooms and transgender, but that's a detail much too specific to one tangent to have any bearing on the 'segment' question. Whether it is a homophobic reaction is a very debatable argument. I have seen it substantiated in some instances and thoroughly disproven in others. My perception is that the substantiated instances are the minority.
GAIn my experience people can be prejudice without even knowing it; and will often justify their stance without facing the fact that their actions or words are offending others!!!!
Nevertheless, DrMark gave a candid response that in my reply to him raises the question: “If we were talking about transsexuals rather than transgender would you still have objections?”As a general public perception, transsexuals and transgender are probably understood to be the same thing. I understand that transgender is more encompassing than transsexual, but that distinction probably doesn't carry beyond the gender-questioning folks involved.
That was the point of my argument that it was a too specific detail of a tangent to be applicable to the 'segments' question. Now, instead of talking about what defines the whole (the segments), the direction has changed to arguing some intricacy of a detail of a tangent.
The connection of subconscious prejudice (supported by "seems" and "could be"), to a general homophobia-driven motive, is really a stretch.
What difference caused you to use the 'transgender v. transsexual' example? Your emphasis (!!!!) on "offending others" seems to infer it's a big part of your reasoning. In short, unknowingly offending someone that is dealing with a life-changing thing (on both sides) seems like an unsupportable reason to dismiss any possible validity for 'others' seeing things differently.
Presuming to be representative of most [C]onservatives, the segments must be separately addressable. Ken's points are valid. The indirect links you speak of are there but they are secondary discussions. It doesn't make sense to let them taint discussions of the whole. Especially when the discussion is about something as basic as demanding acceptance of a redefinition of 'biological fact' because it offends some folks, not because the definition is wrong.
That is a lot different than arguing for acceptance of gay marriage (as an example) as a change in societal norms.
GAYeah, most people are not going to aware of the differences between transsexual and transgender; and most people will not be aware of the GRC (gender recognition certificate) that was introduced in the UK by a Labour (socialist) Government in 2004 e.g. the distinction between someone just calling themselves transgender and someone legally becoming transgender following a medical health diagnosis of gender dysphoria by the NHS.
The reason I introduced transsexual into the conversation is that some people in this forum complained that they wouldn’t want to see a transgender woman in a woman’s public toilets displaying her ‘man parts’; whereas a transsexual woman is a transgender who has taken the steps to have her ‘man parts’ removed – so there is nothing to see.
In your penultimate paragraph, we don’t see eye to eye; in my view it is dangerous to try to isolate the ‘part’ from the ‘whole’; because the ‘part’ is linked to the wider issues e.g. the question of ‘equality’. However, there is nothing wrong in discussing specific points, such as whether a transgender woman has an unfair advantage over women in some sports – and in respect to whether transgender women should be permitted to use women changing rooms or toilets etc., then as stated in the ‘Report’ by the Cross-party Select Committee to the UK Government in Nov 2020:
• “People should be free to dress, behave, and live as they wish. At the point where rights conflict and their wishes have a negative impact on others, rules and laws are needed.” and
• Clarification is needed to provide organisation with the confidence and courage to use the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act as it stands, to know that it is fair and reasonable to provide female-only facilities, and that it is lawful and not discriminatory to exclude males from them, no matter how those males identify.
Which brings me back to your other point, on whether any actions taken by official bodies to ban transsexual women from women’s toilets is or is not “subconsciously prejudice”, homophobic, or reasonably justified for other reasons. In that context, some of the early comments on this forum can be perceived by others (like me) as being subconsciously prejudice, or even potentially homophobia – but more recent responses have allayed a lot of my concerns in that respect – which is good.Nat, I had asked for your response to a particular situation, earlier in this discussion. I don't see a response:
"I have a question for you Nat, here in the states, many biological female athletes have been told to leave their locker rooms if they are aren't comfortable with a biological male athlete {identifying as female} using the facilities. Many of these female athletes are choosing to use public restrooms for changing, etc. (not sure if showers are available in the public restrooms)
In your opinion is this a fair practice, for everyone involved?"Actually, I did give a response, if you look further back in this forum (about 5 hours ago). If you can't find it, let me know and I shall repost.
A day late, but I hope not a dollar short . . . ;-)
The 'bathroom' aspect of this transgender discussion isn't a part of my reasoning. It is too subjective. My argument isn't about equality of human rights(?) either, it is about a demand that biological reality be ignored. A demand that an anomaly be accepted as a norm.
For focus, the thought behind "anomaly" is about the reality of biological genders/sexes and the reality of biologically-driven physical differences. It is not about whether transgenders should have the same human rights considerations as 'normal' people and it's certainly not about what bathroom to use.
In the U.S. I think this transgender issue would have followed the same path to acceptance (by conservatives) as gay marriage. A path to a 'new normal,' not a new normal that men and women are the same or that a transgender sex is the same as a biological sex, but a 'new normal' of acceptance as is.
Your responses about the UK's transgender environment seem to illustrate the path to acceptance that I mentioned via the gay marriage example. In the U.S. that path for transgender acceptance has a toll gate: a demand that the transgender's reality become everyone's reality.
As Credence2 would say, Conservatives are being asked to accept that 2+2=5 — men are physically the same as women and there can be as many sexes as there are different folks.
That's an alternate reality. A deal breaker for folks that may have been willing to 'deal' in the real reality.
GAYou know, sometimes you type up stuff that seems pretty intelligent.
Well Ken, he did take "a day" to come out with it, sooo...
Agreed, well presented GA.Careful, I have a reputation to live down to.
GA
Agreed emphatically except for the last bit about reality. But, reality is a topic OP for the Religion and Philosophy category.
Nope. Possible realities, probable realities, desired realities, or even destined-to-be realities might be topics for religion or philosophy, but the reality of my comments is the reality of now, the reality of what 'is' to the whole.
GA
And I thought we were making progress!?
Your comments that we are ‘normal’ and inferring that people in the LGBT community are not normal e.g. abnormal, is not only an insult, but clearly shows that you are prejudice.
Biological reality (DNA) isn’t being ignored, it has to be dealt with by the individual concerned in the best way they can; which can be a long and difficult road if they are transgender wanting to become a transsexual. Obviously, if you are just a gay, lesbian or bisexual biology doesn’t come into the equation; it’s just as simple that you prefer people of the same sex as you, or you’re not bothered which sex the other person is.
And it’s not a new norm, non-Heterosexuality has always existed in humans; Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role - acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves and male prostitutes.
Gay sex was made illegal in Britain in 1533, and not legalised again until 1967; so for centuries, although gay sex existed, it was ‘swept under the carpet’; the most famous case being Alan Turing, who played a major part in winning the war by breaking the Nazi Enigma code during world war two – In spite of being a war hero, he was prosecuted in 1952 for being gay, and two years later (at the age of 42) committed suicide: He received a royal pardon posthumously in 2013, for all the good that that does him!
Same-sex behaviour has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide, the Bonobos ape (one of our closest living relatives) for example are fully bisexual, and about 60% of their relationships is same sex - Making Love Not War: The Wild Sexual World of Bonobos https://youtu.be/Lb5MwTIV0Wc
Stating that there’s “a demand (from outside forces) that the transgender’s reality become everyone's reality” is an over dramatization. Transgender’s are only asking to be accepted for who they are, and to be allowed to live a normal life like everyone else; they are not asking you to have sex with them – sharing a public toilet shouldn’t be a problem in that respect because they, like everyone else, go to the toilet in a cubical, in privacy – so there is nothing to see. Obviously, sharing a changing room, or competing in certain sports present their own problems, but those issues are being debated and legislated on as deemed appropriate.
The whole basis of your argument is that people are only one of two sexes, and that it is set in stone from birth. Ignoring the fact that some people are born intersex, including hermaphrodites; who you are isn’t just the biology, it’s also the mind e.g. many transgender women are men who feel that they are a woman trapped inside a man’s body – so to them, they are a woman.
Your attitude clearly shows that you don’t have any close contact with any who is, as you would call them, “not normal”.
My attitudes are different because I do know lots of people in the LGBT community; and the more closely you get to know someone, the more you get to understand them, and realising that they are not monsters, but ordinary human-beings like you and me – in other words it breaks down the barrios and taboos - which are obviously still prevalent in America.
HOW WE AS A FAMILY MADE CLOSE TIES WITH THE GAY COMMUNITY:
In the mid-1990s, after our son started secondary school, my wife did a BA Degree in Business Administration, as an adult student. On graduating from university, before getting an Admin job in the NHS she did Admin work for a few years in a multi-faith Chaplaincy. The Chaplin was a lesbian, but my wife’s main concern at the interview is that she’s an agnostic; but the Chaplin reassured her by saying at the interview “you don’t have to be religious to work here”.
The Chaplin became a close family friend, and we stay in touch to this day.
On one of the social events we attended at the Chaplaincy, one of the other chaplains we meet socially at the event, who was doing a presentation (speech) (as part of the chaplaincy staff) was a hermaphrodite, so she had a choice of living as a man or a woman, but chose to live as a woman.
While working at the Chaplaincy my wife also became close friends with one of the Catholic Priests working at the Chaplaincy, who is gay. He’s since left the Chaplaincy and joined a Catholic church, where his Archbishop (boss) is also gay (and living with another man); and as a family we’ve become close social friends with the Archbishop too.
Our gay priest friend was a ‘closet gay’ until about 20 years ago, he’d been married twice and had a daughter by both wife’s; but a point was reached, where he couldn’t live a lie, so he eventually ‘came-out’ and left his second wife, to live the way he is (gay). His oldest daughter is happily married to male transsexual (born female now male), and his youngest daughter is living with another woman, in a lesbian relationship.
A few years after leaving his wife, our priest friend, meet up with a gay from Denmark, and his gay friend from Denmark moved to the Britain so that they could live together. However, his partner from Denmark was a closest transgender, and after about 5 years ‘came out’ and starting living as a woman; and started the long and complex process of becoming a transsexual on the NHS – which she has now done.
However, as our gay priest friend is only attracted to men, when his gay partner became a transgender it was only a matter of time before that relationship broke down; although they are now separated, they’ve stayed in touch as good friends – but now leading separate lives.
When our son was doing his university Degree to become qualified as a professional photographer, as part of passing his Degree he was required to make a short film. With a fellow colleague on the course, they scripted (wrote) their own film (a black comedy) but needed a suitable venue to film it, and of course didn’t have any money to hire a venue for the filming.
Our gay priest friend knew the owner of the gay nightclub in Bristol (The Queen Shilling) so he arranged for our son to meet the nightclub owner, to see if he would allow our son to film in his venue. After a short friendly chat the nightclub owner offered our son free access to the nightclub when it was closed, in exchange that our son did a free ‘promo’ video of the Queen Shilling – So a deal was struck.
On passing his university Degree and becoming a professional photographer, our son’s first regular income was working as a nightclub photographer in one of the nightclubs in Bristol e.g. where the nightclub owner hires a professional photographer – good PR, Advertising, and good for business.
After about six months, on seeing the quality of work, the owner of the Queen Shilling liked our son’s quality and style of photographer and offered him a permanent job, for twice the rate he was getting paid, plus travelling expenses) in the Queen Shilling, Bristol and his other gay club in Bridgwater, Somerset.
In working in the Queen Shilling, our son has meet and done photography for several of the contestants form the American show “RuPaul's Drag Race” when they’ve been on tour in Britain, and he even had the pleasure of personally meeting Conchita Wurst, the Austrian bearded lady who won the Eurovision Song Contest in 2014.
Conchita Wurst chats to Graham Norton: https://youtu.be/AuouE4GbhPU
And in making his contacts in the Queen Shilling, Bristol Pride now hire him as their ‘official photographer’ for their annual Pride March through Bristol.
My wife sometimes goes to the Queen Shilling, and occasionally to the gay venue in Bridgwater, when our son’s working at those events, as a social evening out; and I have gone on occasions myself: Free entry because were the official photographer’s parents; and we are always made most welcome by ‘all’.
So from my perspective, your comments are an insult and prejudice.
The most famous British Gay is Quentin Crisp, who was openly gay during the 2nd world war (when being gay was still illegal in Britain), and he was the subject of the famous British film 'The Naked Civil Servant', portraying his life story: My mother was delighted when she had the pleasure of personally meeting him in London in the 1990s.With the church clerics are you referring to the Church of England?
No: the churches I referenced in my comments are multi-faith church; which is inclusive of all religions, including the Muslim faith; and the Catholic Church. Most of our friends are not religious, of the few that are religious I don't think that many of them are actually Church of England.
I asked because those clerics were openly gay and were referred to as a priest, which for me defaults to Catholic followed by Methodist then Lutheran, and on and on. Not that it really matters to me, just curious as different denominations handle homosexuality and same-sex marriage differently with their policies/positions.
The Catholic Church that our priest friend belongs to is an Ecumenical Catholic church, rather than a Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, although they follow the Roman Catholic faith, they are not bound by the ‘strict’ Roman Catholic rules. Ecumenism is the concept and principle that Christians who belong to different Christian denominations should work together to develop closer relationships among their churches and promote Christian unity.
The Chaplaincy, which is a separate church to the catholic church referenced above, is as previously stated, a multi-faith church, which includes 'all' faiths, including the Muslim faith, so the multi-faith church in Bristol for example, has close ties with all churches of all faiths in the Bristol area.
It might interest you to know that almost 10 years ago, I was given an ‘Apostolic Blessing’ by the archbishop of our priest friend, for helping to renovate their chapel. After the ceremony, and while socialising, with a smile on his face, the archbishop said to me that ‘it’s the first time he’s ever given an Apostolic Blessing to an atheist; and we all had a good giggle about that (the weirdness of the situation) – But then again, I guess that’s Brits for you!!!
Yeah, although the Catholic Church hasn’t recognised same-sex marriage (and not likely to do so in the foreseeable future); on the 9th Feb this year the Church of England voted 250 to 181 in favour of blessing same-sex couples.
Below, is a copy of that certificate, which I have proudly framed and hung up at home.
With emphasis equal to your "!?" Geez Louise nathanville, the way you latched onto "normal" to make a 'prejudiced' charge seems typical of someone ready and willing to be offended if there is the slightest possibility that they can interpret something to be offended by.
Maybe my reaction to your response is a typical (but unaware) prejudiced heterosexual response. I don't think it is, but just in case I will keep the 'cap on the bottle' and explain why I think your reaction to "normal" is a long rant that equates to a white man saying he's not prejudiced because he has lots of black friends (or his best friend is black). I doubt such a rationalization would sit well with you in a race relations discussion.
I'm also feeling a bit unappreciated. "Anomaly" was purposely chosen—instead of 'normal', in hopes of avoiding a knee-jerk reaction like yours. I put a lot of thought into the context of 'anomaly' and normal' to avoid it. I don't think I failed, I think you saw a possible trigger and assumed that was the intent and message.
In the context of the "anomaly" statement, the message was neutral (thought to more likely understood to mean neutral than "normal"), one of difference not good or bad. Surely you don't disagree that our societal norm is one of the biological sex definitions and a heterosexual society, right? A deviation from the norm is first, a difference before the determination of the difference adds the details of good or bad.
Throughout our exchanges, the discussion has been about 'is or isn't and perceptions, not good or bad or right or wrong—with the exception of scientific facts. I too thought 'we were making progress.' I thought my contextual efforts were understood. To me, your response says either my efforts failed or your responses were always based on a preconceived foundation. I can empathize with your disappointment. I don't think I failed, so "prejudice" was as much of a disappointment for me as 'anomaly' was for you.
GAThanks for your clarity, yes I do think your “reaction to (my) response is a typical (but unaware) prejudiced heterosexual response.” and as such I’m not yet convinced that you don’t hold any typical heterosexual prejudiced against those that you consider are not the ‘norm’.
However, I do appreciate your comprehensive reassurance that you didn’t intend to infer that people who are not heterosexual are abnormal in any way.
Perhaps to lighten the mood, giving a rundown on the short film my son had to make, to pass his University Degree, might put a smile or two on your face!? But then again, you might think that we Brits are weird!?
To recap from my previous post: When our son was doing his university Degree to become qualified as a professional photographer, as part of passing his Degree he was required to make a short film. With a fellow colleague on the course, they scripted (wrote) their own film (a black comedy) but needed a suitable venue to film it, and of course didn’t have any money to hire a venue for the filming.
Our gay priest friend knew the owner of the gay nightclub in Bristol (The Queen Shilling) so he arranged for our son to meet the nightclub owner, to see if he would allow our son to film for free in his venue. After a short friendly chat the nightclub owner offered our son free access to the nightclub when it was closed, in exchange that our son did a free ‘promo’ video of the Queen Shilling – So a deal was struck.
The short film our son and his fellow colleague on the course scripted a film which they called “Love Like Milk” e.g. like milk, love sours.
The synopsis of the film was:-
• A young woman goes to a nightclub, where she is chatted up by a young bloke, and at the end of the evening they go back to her flat for sex.
• In the morning she gets up for work and leaves him to get himself up, and let himself out.
• When she comes home she finds him in bed with her brother.
For the nightclub scene, they filmed in the Queen Shilling, a gay nightclub in Bristol.
For the bedroom scenes they filmed in our dining room.
They chose the dining room rather than our bedroom, because our bedroom wasn’t suited to filming; whereas the dining (with modifications) was.
The dining room was semi open plan e.g. no door from the dining room to the hallway, and no door from the dining room to the kitchen. So to make it suitable for filming, and appear like a bedroom the modifications made were:-
• I took our living room door off its hinges and refitted in the dining room, leading to the hallway. After the filming I left the door where it was because our gay priest friend had just some modifications to his house and was getting rid of his old solid wood mahogany back door – so he gave that to me, and I hung it up in living room.
• The doorway leading to the kitchen is an arched recess, so to make it look like an alcove I blocked-up the doorway leading into the kitchen with a piece of scrap plywood I had in my workshop and wallpapered and painted the plywood with the same décor to dining room e.g. wallpaper and paint leftover from when I’d recently redecorated our living room. From then on, until after the filming (when we could dismantle everything again) the only access we had to the kitchen was through the French Doors from the living room into the back garden, then around to the back door.
• We then bought a cheap bedside table from IKEA for just $50, as a prop; which has since been modified, and reutilised in our home office as under desk shelving.
• We then cleared all the dining room furniture out of the dining room, and temporally stored it in our living room.
• I then dismantled our bed from upstairs, and reassembled it in our dining room.
• And for props, we included picture frames of the ‘brother’ in the film, and hung the fluffy handcuffs, that my wife bought from Ann Summers a few years earlier, from the headboard!
For lighting, my son stuck black plastic on the outside wall, over the window, to block out all natural light; and borrowed two specialist film-studio lighting units from university, with remote control; worth around $6,000 each. And they were a brilliant bit of kit that (with the remote control) can simulate any time of day.
We placed the two lighting units behind the closed curtains, on the windowsill; and dawn scene e.g. where the young woman and man wake up in the morning, the lighting units were set to simulate sunrise – most effective.
The actor who played the gay brother was our gay priest’s partner (acting in character).
We all enjoyed in the helping of making ‘Love Like Milk’ – it was great funOh Lord, too early for this to be the first thing I read this morning!
Gay priests and sex scenes filmed at Mum's house!?
As my daughter used to say when she was small, "are you tricking my leg?"Nope, it's all part of British social culture
It was just a discussion of perspectives Arthur, an interesting one because of our different 'national' cultures, but I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.
Obviously, I think my perspective is the more rational one for our times and my nation, but I wasn't trying to convince you your perspective was wrong. I was simply explaining why I think it is and why my perspective is right.
GAYep, you are right; your perspective may well be the more rational one for our times and your, more conservative/Christian nation in the USA. BUT, likewise, my perspective is the more rational one for our times in Britain, which is a more liberal/secular society. I deliberately said Britain, and not the UK, because UK includes Northern Ireland (Britain doesn’t); but that’s another storey!
Further to my previous feedback, picking up on the point where you say:
“Surely you don't disagree that our societal norm is one of the biological sex definitions and a heterosexual society, right?”
Yep, I’d agree that our societal norm is one of the biological sex definition; but I would question the precept that our societal norm is one of heterosexual society definition.
A YouGov opinion poll taken in 2015, of the UK adult population, makes for interesting reading. YouGov is a respected pollster in the UK, whose findings tend to be fairly reliable.
In the opinion poll: Asked to plot themselves on a 'sexuality scale':-
• 23% of British people choose something other than 100% heterosexual – and the figure rises to 49% among 18-24 year olds.
• Albeit, overall, 89% of the population describes themselves as predominantly heterosexual.
• However, 19% of the whole adult population say they are somewhere in between – classed as bisexual in varying degrees.
• 18-24 year-olds are particularly striking, as 43% place themselves in the non-binary area.
• People of all generations now accept the idea that sexual orientation exists along a continuum rather than a binary choice - overall 60% of heterosexuals support this idea, and 73% of homosexuals.
• Only 28% of heterosexuals in Britain believe that 'there is no middle ground – you are either heterosexual or you are not'.
So in reality, fewer people than you might think (at least in Britain) are what you would classify as the ‘Norm’!Along those lines, I at this time reasoned, for me based on my study it kinda' goes like this . . . It is there is sex → gender → sexuality in human development.
At birth, the doctor/team determines sex primarily by observation. There are three; male, female, and intersex, which means there are abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia. In other words, the observed sex does not meet medical/biological and social definitions of sex.
Using science such as chromosomes and how much of a presence there is of the hormone androgen there is the doctor/team decides which normalized sex for society, in general, to assign the intersex child through surgery. In actuality, it is reassigning the intersex child to a male or female sex.
There is no actual study directly saying what percent of intersex wind up being transgender. But, papers have indicated a significant number are, thus giving cause for further investigation. However, from my reading parents are counseled on methods of socialization for sex-gender matching.
As a side note, today neurobiology through MRI imaging of the brain shows significant evidence transgenders' match their sex/gender choice, not their assigned sex.
As early as age 3 a child realizes differences in sex while forming their own internalization of that for themself. Gender is an internalized self-realization forming as an element of personal identity. The larger majority of the time a child's biological sex will match that gender choice. Five percent of young adults identify as transgender in U.S. Studies.
Then comes along puberty when a child heading into being an adult explores sexuality. Sexuality is heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, pansexual, and others. In other words, what sex are they romantically attracted to along with their internalization of meaning for Love? Another element of the 'Self' or Identity. Elements of that are not only physical features, yet, too, are socialized mannerisms and psychological portrayals, i.e., femininity or masculinity.
That is why I said to Ken in an earlier post, it is a puzzle. We each went through this process of life in my view. As I see it, today there is greater awareness of differences because society has become what it is along with the advancement of science and with today's technology access to information, e.g. the internet. People, in general, are more informed including children - teens - young adults, and onward with generations.
Along with that is the different role education has in society, which is contentious. One of those contentions is the dispute of age appropriateness along with permission for the child to be taught the subject.
A side note: One reason why I am so interested in this topic is my younger brother by eight years when born testis did not drop at birth. In other words, they were not visually present. He had to have that rectified by surgery. When first introduced to intersex through discussion in these forms of transgenders with my research I wondered if my brother is intersex.
"The key factor to keep in mind is that apparent lack of testicles (Visual/observation) does not automatically mean the child is intersex; ultimately, it is the presence and combination of X- and Y-chromosomes that determine a child's sex."Thanks Tim, a fascinating and informative read
What a labyrinth!! That is so with anything gender-related today, right? There firstly is the confusion about the interchangeability of gender and sex. Those two are two distinctly different things. My observation is transgenders are more sensitive to that.
Quickly, sex is biologically determined by chromosomes. Gender is directly determined by the 'self'. And, then comes along sexual orientation to add confusion. As said a labyrinth, right? And, it is just the beginning.
If open to discovery or at least seeking an understanding of gender as it has evolved try the following website. It is Gender Spectrum at the following link.
https://genderspectrum.org/articles/und … ing-gender
Yet, that could be considered a distraction, deflection, or a queue to my position. Any of those would be presumptuous.
Seeking more is the discovery of what the law firm posted regarding Josh Alexander's case at their site. It becomes apparent with reading it is more of a political stance than about his freedoms or rights specifically religion and expression, IMO. Maybe not? Or, Josh Alexander is the catalyst for something bigger?
https://libertycoalitioncanada.com/libe … -v-rccdsb/
To support that is a Fox Article stating that his lawyer was suspended for opposing transgender ideology. An interesting read giving insight into the case of Josh Alexander and the dilemma.
Attorney for teen suspended after opposing trans ideology says religious freedom 'essentially dead' in Canada
https://www.foxnews.com/world/attorney- … ead-canada
And, could it all boil down to secularism vs Religion? Is Satan using a new tool perhaps? To give insight is the article, Why Was a Canadian Student Expelled From Catholic School for Opposing Transgender Bathroom Policy? by the National Catholic Register. This is the best article of many explaining what happened with Josh Alexander in my view.
https://www.ncregister.com/news/why-was … oom-policy
The following is a quote from it;
"We are living in a time of militant secularism throughout the Western world. The de-Christianization of the West has resulted in nihilism or moral anarchy,” he said. “Unless churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. fight back, they will have to bend to the secular agenda, and if that happens there is no reason to stay in business.”
So, is there something on the horizon that is obscured by whose rights are greater? Gender vs. Religion? Could it be nature vs nurture at issue? I don't know, but I do know it is a labyrinth.I don't think it is a labyrinth, and that it is being made into one is the point of the OP.
In common usage—pre-issue, sex, and gender mean the same thing. Scientifically (physical science) they are the same thing. Factually and societally they have been the same thing. There was no confusion, no labyrinth of understanding to solve.
Gender Identity has become a common understanding of feelings about gender, not a new definition of gender. Even that use implies a reference to sex: 'I feel like a man' Or 'I don't feel like a man'. It is the new insistence that man doesn't mean male that creates the resistance.
In essence, it's like saying 2+2 no longer equals four because I don't feel like it does.
That is a hard conservative perspective that I think has room for a little liberal tolerance of difference. I would say there is a general acceptance among most conservatives of the gender identity and transgender issues. It is the demand that a non-norm (2+2 does not equal four) become the new norm because the new norm folks say so that upsets reasonable folks.
GAA Pew Research study in June of 2022 shares 60% of 'All Americans' say gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth. For Republican/lean Republicans it is 86% and for Democrat/lean Democrats it is 38%.
Further along, it shares that 43% say that societal views on gender identity are changing too quickly. 26% is not quick enough. And, 28% is about right. Rep/Rep lean is at 70% too quickly. Dem/Dem lean 21% too quickly.
To me, that means it is not something exclusive to conservatives.
The study is titled; Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues. I read here and there at some of the many graphics that perked up my curiosity.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-tren … er-issues/
To me, that study may offer 'a little' on why I think it is a labyrinth along with all the research I have done recently. It is not just an issue of language, it is the fact it is here to stay and most certainly is in public view.
It is about the transitional process that will take over who knows what time span within the greater society including governing and the courts. And, it is not exclusive to the U.S. Examples to consider for the transitioning process are race and ethnicity, feminism, and sexual orientation. One could say unlike homosexuality which took, what, centuries to come out of the closet becoming acceptable(?), gender identity leaped through the door. Ta-da . . . I'm here, look at me.
Besides, only 1.6 million of people in the U.S. age 13+ identify as transgender. If it weren't for the bathroom issue no one would give a crap. Does this speak to the tyranny of the minority? Maybe the current situation is only one big filibuster in the social sense.
For info on How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States? (that was the article title) go to the following link. There are demographics presented even by the states. It is from UCLA Williams Institute.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ … ed-states/Your points are all valid things that are part of the issue.
Your Pew data shows the issue as I see it: 9 of 10 conservatives agree there are only two genders but only 4 of 10 liberals do. The issue might not be exclusive to conservatives, but with those numbers, it is primarily a conservative issue.
The thought that this is not a 'language' issue also agrees with my perspective. As does 'it' is here to stay and it is and will be a very public issue—until the public accepts that gender identity and transgender issues are real and valid.
That will not happen as long as the minority of the issue demands that the majority accept their truths as real truths. They are not. Reasonable people reject that and unreasonable people will fight it to the death (metaphorically)
The example of the OP is an illustration of the effect of the minority's demand and the church's response. Consider the simplicity of the example: a classroom open discussion on the subject draws penalties for saying something that is true because other participants don't want to hear it.*
*with the caveat that I don't know how intense the 2-gender guy was in the discussion
GAa classroom open discussion on the subject draws penalties for saying something that is true because other participants don't want to hear it.*
*with the caveat that I don't know how intense the 2-gender guy was in the discussion
I decided not to comment on this topic before because I'll be wasting my time.
But, for what is worth... Since more than one seem to think "saying there are only two genders" was the only thing that happened, I'll add some context.
From what I read from multiple sources, the kid was previously suspended multiple times at a previous school. He enrolled at the Catholic School and a few months in, he was suspended because he decided to organize a protest online and outside school, eventhough he was made aware of the consecuenses. He was told by his principal that he was allowed to return to school only if he stopped using the "dead name," or given name, of transgender students and excluded himself from classes with two transgender students. He didnt. And he went back twice to those classes so they suspended him again and excluded him twice. The first day of the new semester, he went back to classs and was excorted out and arrested for trespassing.
(Also, it is a public-funded school.)You shouldn't have hesitated, you might have helped sharpen the focus. It was never about religion—other than as a barometer showing the depth of the issue's tentacles, and it was never about Alexander's specific actions. Each comment included caveats saying that.
I was aware of much of the context you provided. I'm not defending the guy, and my criticism of the school's decision is based on their statements. But even that is secondary to the point of the OP: the damage this issue is causing. My misstep was using a religion-involved example. As you have seen, the point I intended wasn't the direction the thread tried to take.
If the nation was not seeing their leaders and authoritative figures arguing about how many genders there are, and instead heard them talking about choosing to live as another gender, this issue would have received a lot more reasonable consideration and the OP example most likely would not have happened as it did.
It is almost a common criticism of conservatives that they don't believe in science, or don't follow the science of things. In this case, hard science is on their side. Yet, over half of those doing the criticizing (with very negative connotations) won't accept the hard science of this issue.
Imagine a religious Republican conservative being asked to deny the reality of biology before they consider accepting that others want to live their life as a non-biological gender.
GA
I get where you are coming from, though I may differ in view with some points. No need to go there except I think you are saying the Catholic Church responded on the issue. It was the agency of being a school under Canadian law. It doesn't matter if it was Catholic or not. The same with bullying.
Canadian law specifically the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Link following. Also, below that link is a school districts policy regarding gender identity for an example of how they handle it.
Policy on preventing discrimination because of gender identity and gender expression from the Ontario Human Right Commission. Section 13.4 is Washroom and Change Rooms.
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preven … rimination
Avon Maitland District School Board - Administrative Procedure 398: Gender Identity.
Appendix C is guidelines for students. It states; “Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, all students have a right to safe restroom facilities and the right to use a washroom that corresponds to their chosen gender identity, regardless of the student’s sex assigned at birth. Requests for accommodation may include the use of one, or both gendered washrooms, or the use of a private all-gender single stall washroom. Where possible, schools will provide an easily accessible all-gender single stall washroom for use by a student who requests accommodation for increased privacy. The use of a single stall washroom should always be a matter of choice requested through the accommodation process (Form 398A: Student Request for Accommodation Form).
https://www.amdsb.ca/apps/pages/index.j … ID=1380582
With bullying from Public Safety Canada of the Government of Canada;
"What is Bullying?
Bullying is characterized by acts of intentional harm, repeated over-time, in a relationship where an imbalance of power exists. It includes physical actions (punching, kicking, biting), verbal actions (threats, name calling, insults, racial or sexual comments), and social exclusion Footnote 1 (spreading rumours, ignoring, gossiping, excluding) (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Ma, Stewin & Mah, 2001). Boys tend to be more likely to bully and be bullied, usually in the form of a physical attack and exhibition of aggressive behaviour. Alternatively, girls appear to be more prone to indirect bullying in the form of social isolation, slandering and the spreading of rumours (Marcel T. Van der Wal, et al., 2003).
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrc … n.aspx#a01
I would note at this time the intentional refusal by Josh Alexander to not use the preferred name of the trans students instead using the 'Dead Name' just might fall under bullying.
For the school, they had a conundrum as I see it. The law of the land vs. the law of God.I agree.
they had a conundrum as I see it. The law of the land vs. the law of God.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart...love your neighbor as yourself.There is no commandment greater than these.”
But I dont think it was that hard. They did. Others "christians" should follow them too.
'Your Pew data shows the issue as I see it: 9 of 10 conservatives agree there are only two genders but only 4 of 10 liberals do.'
I think the data was misrepresented here a bit. Liberals can agree on two genders, but disagree that gender identity has to match the sex assigned at birth.I would agree, with the caveat that many liberals feel there are more than two genders. The plethora of terminology to describe them gives testament to that.
But, I think, the biggest problem is that liberals want to treat "gender" as "sex" and conservatives will not accept that. Worse, liberals want to think that gender is changeable at will and therefore sex also is; the result is that liberals demand everyone accept one pretending to be the sex they are not and conservatives will absolutely NOT accept that.I can agree with this entire statement. If liberals could be clear that they accept someone's gender choices, while respecting the norms of sex (such as sport, gender neutral bathroom options for trans) maybe that would be the middle ground that the country could arrive at.
I suspect it would come very close. Not perfect (what compromise ever is?) but close.
Picking up on the quote, which you reference:
"We are living in a time of militant secularism throughout the Western world. The de-Christianization of the West has resulted in nihilism or moral anarchy,” he said. “Unless churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. fight back, they will have to bend to the secular agenda, and if that happens there is no reason to stay in business.”
That’s very much what the Church of England has become since the 1960s e.g. over the decades since the 1960s it’s become very adept at bending to the secular agenda; the most recent being the Church of England voting on the 9th Feb 2023 to bless ‘same sex couples’ in church.
Never did I think I would see a day when a generation of people were confused on to what is and is not a man and a woman.
Women cannot become men and men cannot become women
The only thing that can be done, and has been done, is a person alters their body via chemical/surgery and dresses to provide an illusion of being the opposite sex.
Psychological fantasy does not change biological reality.
These are facts and they are indisputable.
It takes courage to tell the truth. Obviously this student had such courage. It is a shame he has to be in a school with an administration afraid of facts, truth and reality. They are truly cowards of the highest degree.My friend, "the West" is living in a Post-Truth world.
That is the simplest way for me to say it.
The "enlightened" state "the West" is in regarding being all inclusive regarding if a person feels they are an opposite sex, or a cat, or a victim, or whatever they feel at that time, is, in fact, no matter how well dressed up by psychology or sociology, an acceptance of the insane as normal.
If I see a biological male exposing his manhood to my granddaughters in a women's restroom, he may not walk out intact!
And a mentally ill, abused or otherwise distraught girl lashing out at your granddaughter in that unmonitored bathroom???? Do you at all think the issue is with monitoring bathrooms rather than demonizing trans people??? Hmmm. Or is it just easier to believe trans people are inherently predisposed to aberrant behaviors??
Deleted
Yeah and being hetero gives you the stamp of moral approval??? No worries there. Heteros never do anything wrong in a bathroom LOL
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2022/01 … -straight/
https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/10 … -bathroom/
Looks like we've got a hetero bathroom problem
Hmm maybe put cameras in the bathroom ? Seems like a Republican solution.Alrighty then, you are obviously the one with a problem, looking for trouble and I am not biting.
This conversation is over.Id say your comment back is pretty rude. You assume I have a problem? What is my problem? I presented you with the reality of the bathroom situation. Fine if you choose to ignore it because you don't have an answer. This forum is so conservative you don't need to fear a ban. When you report me, I'm sure your moderator will help you out by banning me. But I don't understand the labeling and fear of trans people. Pretty judgemental to me and ignores all the stuff going on in bathrooms perpetrated by straight people.
Watch for the ban.....
Whatever that may make me or however I may come across...to the more-enlightened crowd, I really don't give a damn!!
Interesting thread, though I get lost on some of the points at times. At this point, the dialogue is focused on transgender and the importance of restrooms/bathroom/change room rights. To me, that means to some extent transgender is at least acknowledged with a perhaps accepted.
In my view, transgenders should use their biological restrooms/change rooms as to me it won't harm their personal psychology any more than hurting the psychology of the opposite sex established restroom/change room. In other words the majority rules.
I also have an inclination of less a trusting attitude toward one’s sexuality that may be strongly influenced by nature’s drive to romantic attraction, e.g. hormones and etc contrast with a confused teen or a nefarious actor. However, what about a lesbian in a woman’s restroom or changing room? In other words seeing is believing in its own right in a sense. Perplexing . . . especially for teens and early twenties.
And, with sports athletes, they should compete in their biological sex, but I feel that should be established by chromosomes due to the fact, yes, there is intersex. Yet, what do I know? I have not reasoned all the perspectives of that yet.
Interestingly enough there are at birth sex assignments as high as 1 in 2000. Having read this and that I can understand how a mistake could be made with that when considering the physical and neurobiological followed by nurturing and socializing over who knows what time span.
How common is intersex?
https://isna.org/faq/frequency/
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Household Pulse Survey (US Census survey)
https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz … ntity.htmlActually GA has brought something similar up in the past, confirming my belief, we are embracing the insane as sane.
The part that talks about people identifying as water, fictional beings, etc... I'm fairly certain such stuff was how they defined insane years ago.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … rimination(A little wandering . . . forgive the length)
Thanks for the link, Ken! That demonstrates on and on it goes and will for many years to come. From that and this thread it is obvious to me some don’t get there are three sexes – male, female, and intersex. Intersex must be recognized as it leads to sex assignment at birth due to abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia.
That assignment is done with surgery. In other words, it is not God making the decision of what sex the child is, it is a medical team hopefully including the parents. Years ago they did not include the parents. And, today’s discussion is headed toward not doing a sex assignment at birth instead allowing it to exist as is allowing the individual to make the choice later in life. I don’t agree with that sentiment at this time.
SEX ASSIGNED AT BIRTH by Columbia Law Review
https://columbialawreview.org/content/s … -at-birth/
Neonatal Sex Assignment in Disorders of Sex Development: A Philosophical Introspection by National Library of Medicine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593477/
And, yes, male and female are one of many classifications of gender, but they still fall into ‘Today’s’ definition (Science & Social) that gender is an internal realization of the ‘Self’, not a binary biological assignment given at birth, though approximately 88% of the time they match. That is why it gets confusing in dialogue, at least for me. The ‘Self’ leads to identity, which is another topic for later.
With sources saying there are this many genders, and another source saying there are this many, I have given up on what’s right. I have concluded for myself there are four; cisgender – male and female coordinated with sex at birth, transgender, and Gender non-conforming or nonbinary.
The latter is all the others thrown into one basket as you pointed out there are so many. Though some are far obscure to the point of ridiculous or as you said, “insane”, e.g. furries. I think governments are in that mindset too since for many states today’s forms there is an ‘X’ designation along with male and female. That is true with driver’s licenses today too.
As for me, the time period the OP you linked to is when I began researching and reading about transgender leading to other tangents like learning about intersex and doctor/medical teams making the determination of male or female at birth. And, seeking to understand the puzzle while trying to assimilate what I acknowledge may lead to acceptance within my belief system, which is more conservative than liberal.
At this time, the bottom line for me is chromosomes with their science are the only true way to determine binary sex – male and female, even though ambiguous genitalia may confound that. In other words, the visible genitalia does not match the chromosomes, which does happen. Also, all the complexities of chromosomes such as being an ‘XXXY’ or things like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY).
And, a verse from the Bible; “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:12), gave me pause, still today.Yes, I recall a thread you started on the matter years back.
I remember I engaged you quite a bit in it, as I also researched the matter regarding surgeries that were conducted on those Intersex newborns and or those who were clipped a bit too much and then the change was made.
I remember one such child kept identifying as a boy, despite having the surgery as a newborn, despite being brought up a girl, and committed suicide around 30, if I recall correctly.
In the case of Transgender/Transexual, I think a fair way to settle it, would be to protect women in their "safe spaces", however, anyone who has gone so far as to have surgery to transition from one sex to another, should be identified as that sex and allowed access to those "safe spaces".
If not, then as a society we are placing a Trans' needs above a woman's needs. We are putting Trans' feelings of being discriminated against ahead of women's rights to safety from assault in a "safe space".
Perhaps this is merely the social steps being taken until we reach the point where there is no male or female showers, bathrooms, sports or sex identifiers at all. That would be true equality.I am sure you saw further back in the thread I gave my position on bathrooms being they should follow biological sex natural or assigned. For me, it is a common courtesy to do so, and is logical.
"If not, then as a society we are placing a Trans' needs above a woman's needs. We are putting Trans' feelings of being discriminated against ahead of women's rights to safety from assault in a "safe space".
That statement falls in line with my thinking pretty much. In my statement earlier the argument of the psychological harm a trans has using their biological/assigned sex's bathroom is not greater than the matching sex and gender person's psychological harm by their bathroom being intruded/invaded upon by a trans. So, I go with the majority rules.
With that said, while I hope I made sense, the safe space stuff to me has credence with psychological harm while I doubt seriously at this time the actuality of rape taking place by a trans is no greater than an actual male sex with matching gender.
In other words, the threat with its perceptions (Psychological harm) is greater than its actual occurrence. However, I am not saying to not consider it as there is evidence of that occurring in prisons. That leads to a greater discussion of sex, sexuality, and gender. All three of those are real. The puzzle is a puzzle.
I am amazed at where society(s) are headed today throughout the world, especially with the rapid pace of science with all its disciplines and technology too. As an analogy and with jest, I still don't accept NHRA Pro Stock transitioned from tunnel rams with 4-barrel carburetors and hood scoops to fuel injection with a throttle body without hood scoops. It just ain't right!
....and bats coming through the window, that would be one scary bathroom!!
I don't report people, I am actually looking forward to seeing what subjects you will be writing about here at HP, but this particular conversation is over. Take care!
It is interesting where slippery slopes lead to.
There will always be anomalies, but that's what they are. Anomalies don't typically get their own place of prominence, but that's where we are today.Agreed! But, the task is civil rights that should be afforded to them, which is contentious, right? For me, historically, that began with the movement of women in essence demanding the right to vote. In other words, the war of sex/gender. What do you think?
I think that women winning the right to vote has nothing to do with and should not enter a conversation regarding a more powerful man {aka: biological male} entering into their {biological females} safe spaces, each and every one...and then being asked to accept it, otherwise, they are the one with a problem.
How do you feel safe with any strangers in a bathroom? I mean a real sicko could be in the next stall
I said nothing about bathroom rights did I? I said civil rights. Bathrooms are not a civil right in my mind. It is a social courtesy, though I have used a lady's bathroom once or twice in my life span due to urgency and lack of people around. If you have been following the thread then you saw my statement regarding bathrooms/restrooms/change rooms. It is not unlike yours.
There was a part two to my comment, sorry I didn't get it posted quickly enough.
Also, the forum topic mentions a "bathroom".
I have heard this argument, however. Feminists brought us to this point and now they are silent!
I am not, nor have I ever been a feminist, although I have mentioned the feminist anthem, "I Am Woman Hear Me Roar", quite a bit, here of late.
I believe that trans people should be respected and given as many rights as possible. That being said, there are some awkward problems that need to be solved. One is which bathroom to use. The other is which category of athletic event to enter.
Not sure what you mean? Give trans people "as many rights as possible' why shouldn't they have the rights that all humans here in our country enjoy?? And if s person is fully transitioned what problem with the bathroom needs to be solved? The bathroom issue baffles me.
If the person has had gender affirmation surgery and special hormonal treatment, that may negate the problems. Variety exists depending on the age of the person, the time when they decided to transition to another gender, and how extensive their surgery and medical treatment was, however. It also depends on the length of their hormonal treatment.
The article below indicates that a transgendered women may retain some of her extra strength from when she was a male for at least three years. More research is necessary to explore the details.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33648944/I still don't understand what problems you are speaking to? That a recently transitioned male to female retains strength? That's a bathroom threat? What about these buff females that workout everyday? Seriously. I'm lost here. In reality what's to stop any man with bad intentions from entering a women's bathroomat any time. This seems to be more about the Republican Party painting trans people as sub human, violent, sexually deviant aberrations that should be feared. As if plenty of straight people don't fit that description.
I think it depends on the setup of the bathroom. If everyone uses a cubicle, I don’t see a problem. Females, males, and people in the process of transforming from one gender to another can urinate or defecate in private, as they do at home in many countries.
People changing from one gender are not “subhuman” but in transition. For some people, the transition process is a lengthy one.
Athletic achievements that depend on gender are more complicated. Males competing in female events when they still have some of their previous strength is unfair. Females competing in male events when they haven’t yet built enough muscle strength to be an equal competitor is also unfair.If it's a female restroom then there are obviously not urinals. I just can't wrap my head around the bathroom concern. If you're in a stall and a transitioned individual is on another, where is the issue?? It's pretty much the set up we have now, isn't it?
I was thinking about male bathrooms and people transitioning into males as well.
I want people to be protected as much as possible while they are transitioning.
I also want athletic competitions to be fair.Am I missing something that is happening in bathrooms?? Are we supposed to be sizing people up when we enter as far as if they are transitioning or should we just do our business and leave?? I don't get it. I go in a public bathroom. Take a p*ss and leave. It's pretty simple.
Just curious, can the name of Jesus Christ be introduced in multi-faith gatherings which include Muslims? Are Jewish Rabbis present?
Don't read any more into the question posed than what it is, the scenario piqued my curiosity.
Thanks.Yes: The Muslim faith, like the Jewish faith, only recognises the ‘old testament’, not the ‘new testament’; and yes the multi-faith church represents the Jewish faith as well. The presentation I and my family were invited to, had both a Muslim leader and a Jewish leader giving a joint presentation, to stress that ‘all’ believe in the same ‘creator’; with their presentation highlighting what both religions have in common. For clarity, the Muslim faith just sees the messiah as another prophet, not as the son of the ‘father in heaven’.
Here’s a short video clip of a multi faith Chaplaincy in Birmingham, which may answer some of your questions: https://youtu.be/jy7T7gehee0
Multi-faith Britain (this short video might give further clarity to your questions): https://youtu.be/bZTVW6Y83Bs
Related Discussions
- 19
Historic Dates vs. Random Made-up, Obscure Dates
by Angie B Williams 2 weeks ago
It seems to me that we have gotten to the point, in the United States of America, where nothing is Just, but also, where nothing is Sacred. A random person can makeup a day/a date or dates, and then proclaim (better yet, have a President proclaim) its significance.I contend that as a result,...
- 20
What do you think about enforcing religion in Catholic schools?
by Casey Pollich 8 years ago
What do you think about enforcing religion in Catholic schools?In a lot of catholic schools, it is a mandatory course to take religion, as well as to attend mass, do you agree with enforcing religion on students? To add to that, a lot of students are beginning to turn away from religion because it...
- 16
Why Do Parents Send Their Children To Christian Schools?
by B M Gunn 8 years ago
Why Do Parents Send Their Children To Christian Schools?I personally think that each person should have to choice to partake in any (or no) religion of their choosing. It is a very personally matter that should be made individually. So it really bugs me when evangelical parents send their kids to...
- 43
Do YOU contend that transpeople are becoming a bit extreme regarding their right
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
Do YOU contend that transpeople are becoming a bit extreme regarding their rights?
- 317
What are your thoughts on boys showering with girls at school?
by Peg Cole 8 years ago
You've probably seen the reports stating that the "Director of Education has ordered a suburban Chicago school to allow a boy who claims to be a girl into the girls’ locker room, whether or not the girls or their parents like it." Other states will soon be facing the same issue.Breibart...
- 13
What are peoples thoughts of catholic school?
by Tiffany 8 years ago
What are peoples thoughts of catholic school?I'm not religious, my husband believes in god and my son just started kindergarten and I enrolled him in Catholic school which to me is strange cuz there is a lot of religious stuff. I always thought that the best part of religion is the morals and a lot...