Schools to teach kids there's no such thing as boys or girls.

Interesting that you chose to edit out the part of the definition that disagreed with you:

 

So you want to redefine "gender" because of an exceptionally rare condition (XY gonadal dysgenesis, less than 0.06% of the American population have it to any degree)? That's the hair on the very tip of the tail wagging the dog.

 

Fox News. Of course. They peddle outrage

It's actually true that gender is not an absolute..

 

Stacking the deck. People who are genuinely transgender aren't confused. They know what 'parts' they were born with. They also know that they don't identify with the social and cultural aspects of gender typically associated with their biological sex. I won't pretend to know the cause - I don't think the science is there yet. But I have seen the effect - a person born female who sees himself as male despite his physical body indicating otherwise. Yet this person is normal in every other respect. That you want to stigmatize these people by saying they're "confused" and "mentally defective" says more about your ignorance than it does their mental state.

What's more, there are people who were assigned a sex at birth based on outward physical appearances whose genetics and internal organs are the opposite of their external organs. They aren't confused either when they identify as the sex opposite the one they were assigned at birth.

Most intersex people don't really fit the term you used. It's also oversimplifying, as there are many different types of intersex conditions. Rarity doesn't make these people any less human, any less worthy of respect, nor any less due their rights.

The problem is when you take "outside the norm" and use it as an excuse to denigrate and stigmatize people, and to pass laws that restrict their rights.

 

I thought they "seek to indoctrinate children" to get more partners, not create more liberals. You seem a bit confused.

Oh, never mind, you appear totally clueless on the issue, either by personal interactions with gays, serious reading or both. You might also want to do some research on the percentage of the population that is gay. If you look around, you're likely to find it's anywhere from 500% to over 1,000% higher than your estimate. Have a nice day ... and be careful who you shake hands with (you just don't know where those hands have been).

 

You misunderstanding my post isn't an example of confusion on my part.

Let's see that "research" that shows that 10-20% of the population is gay. Television shows and movies that over represent gay characters don't count.

 

No, I simply have the understanding that not everyone fits our binary concept of biological sex, and that there is more to gender than biological sex. Unlike some, I am not afraid of the complexities of the human condition.

 

Who gives a s***, man? Seriously, people need to get a grip and focus on their own lives and leaves others alone.

 

As to the issue of teaching this to kids in school, I'm concerned about age-appropriateness. Things like social theory concerning concepts of gender are probably more suited to a college age audience. Moreover, most children are not atypical, so why introduce topics that may be confusing to them?

I think the better approach is to deal with individual situations to make sure the educational environment is a safe place for people who are different.

We have a family member who is transgender, and they ended up having to homeschool him due to the bullying he was experiencing. So this isn't just something abstract to me. It is a part of the lives of real people, and for me, a part of mine because I know such people.

The sheer ignorance and hate directed toward difference in this thread just reconfirms what I've known for a long time. Haters gonna hate. Some people are proud of their ignorance. Those are not the people I'm trying to reach, because they are unteachable.

 

Ha ha ha... I'm not talking about a fish or a flower, you know. Is your spouse of an absolute gender? (assuming, you have one)?

 

And nobody here is afraid of the complexities either, but they don't want to up-end society to accommodate a tiny handful of people. And that's why you brought up such a rare condition, to justify a massive and PC based reworking all of society to accommodate the people that the vast majority of society will never encounter.

 

No one is as absolute as they'd like to pretend. People actually overcompensate for that through ideas of masculinity and femininity, kind of like how blacks and whites have sought to segregate themselves. It's a curious aspect of human psychology for fundamentally similar individuals to emphasise their mutual differences and strive towards separation, towards opposite extremes.

With gender, we assign certain attributes to each, and then enforce these attributes socially and culturally. Progressives are simply recognising and combating this tendency.

 

Exactly. You just have to convince the gays and their masses of useful idiots.

 

I don't think I'm ignorant nor hateful, I believe it simply to be factual. We were born with two genders: Male or Female, the various merging of our chromosomes determines which it is. If it's X+ Y, you're a boy . If it's Y+Y, you're a girl. That stupidly simple. I would even argue a Transgender is a male, whose female chromosomes probably are just as significant as their male ones. It doesn't change their biological construct, it does however alter the way they view the world.

What we need to do, is not to make them feel as though they're a female in a male's body, but come to accept their feminine behaviors and instincts, as part of their male identity. Because that's what they are, and no amount of dress-up is going to change that fact.

 

I beg to differ. They may not wish to admit it, but it's pretty clear from their insistence on oversimplifying reality.

Hyperbole. A tiny handful of people are still people, still deserving of their rights and basic dignity.

No. There is nothing "PC" about the realities of which I have spoken. "PC" would be trying to sweep those realities under the rug, keep them hidden from the light of day - like those who insist on oversimplifying the human condition are trying to do.

Despite what some would like to believe, our differences from the norm don't mean we aren't still a part of this society, despite their efforts to marginalize and minimize us. The fact that you might not ever encounter a person who is transgender or intersex doesn't make them any less human, any less a part of this society, any less deserving of their rights. If you take the position that people only matter if they're part of some significantly large group, then it's clear to me that you don't believe in the basic dignity and equality of all human beings - only those you personally deem 'worthy', based on how many of them are on the planet. Sad, that.

 

Sorry. While I usually post links, in this, and some other cases, I don't because I want you to do your own research. I mean, it doesn't take very long - not much more than a couple of minutes, but if you are interested, please feel free to investigate further. Even if you find out you are quite wrong. No shame in admitting it. Shucks, I've been wrong before ... can't remember the last time, but I'm sure it happened.

 

LOL, thanks for confirming that you couldn't substantiate your own argument. I think you would have saved more face by simply not responding to my post after you realized your claim was incorrect, but I appreciate that you did.

 

First of all, XY would usually result in a typical male, XX would usually result in a typical female. At least get your facts right if you're going to claim to be basing your opinion on the facts.

Your desire for the facts concerning sexual differentiation, biological sex, gender identity, gender role/expression, and sexual orientation to be "stupidly simple" doesn't make them so. It just makes your opinions on these issues appear "stupidly simple".

What's more, 'transgender' doesn't refer only to biological males who identify as female. The transgender family member I know was born female, and identifies as male. I notice that in these discussions it's always about the non-conforming males, which makes me suspect misogyny as the underlying cause. Seemingly guys don't mind a female tomboy who isn't fussed by icky things or who isn't weak. But if a guy doesn't conform to their personal perceptions of masculinity, the fear and hate - whether it's blatant, or subtle and maybe not even a fully conscious reaction - soon comes out.

You don't understand what being transgender is really like if you think this is applicable. It's not about rejecting feminine behaviors and instincts as part of their male identity. It's about not having a male identity in the first place. You can't make them have one. There is no way to integrate their feminine traits into an identity they don't have.

 

I'm going to post just how many gay characters on TV there are, and it's pretty much an accurate percentage. Hardly over-representation at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-gay-and-lesbian-tv-characters-growing-says-glaad/

That's hardly an over-representation.

 

Even assuming your numbers are true, that's a far cry from the 10-20% range that Grizz threw out, isn't it?

If the media isn't overrepresenting the number of gays in society, how can anyone be of the assumption that possibly 1 in 5 people in the country is gay? What's causing it?

 

Sorry about the minor chromosome screwup, but the point stands about our biological operations And yes, the male transgender is more well known but I haven't denied female transgender's exist.(Well, mostly said female transgender's don't dismiss their female identity entirely.) It's the same thing, the female child was born with more male chromosomes than not and hence adapted male thinking and male receptive responses.

I'd even say it's natural, and that we're not entirely 100% wired towards male and female oriented ways of thinking. But what we are, biologically is either a male, or a female. And the best thing we can do, is accept who we are and not make ourselves into who we want to be. Acceptance is the path to self-assurance. It's the hardest thing to do, but it's the most rewarding thing to do as well.

 

And the practicality of taking away math and geography time from seven-graders to teach they these fine philosophical aspects of human nature is?

If you bluntly ask parents of what'd they prefer to be taught to their kids - more math or more tolerance toward sexual minorities, what do you think they'll pick? Was Gruber right, and Americans are fundamentally stupid through not recognizing what's better for their kids?

 

Define "regularly seen"

 

Oh, I don't know about that trade-off. It sounds questionable as you describe it.

 

Read the article I posted. 3.9 %- yep, they're doing away with all heterosexual characters for sure.