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

No offense taken.

 

That's your opinion, because a person has a firm position that differs from yours then you conclude they don't understand the problem and are simpletons. Maybe they are not the problem.

Nobody said anything about denying these people their basic rights and dignity. But society does not and should not conform to the lowest common denominator. It makes absolutely no sense to burden 320 Million people and change the fundamental structure of society for 0.06% of the population who has a rare condition. There is a cost to such a reworking of society, and no matter how many times someone says "every one is deserving" the fact is that statement is false.

And really you are not providing them rights and dignity, all you are doing is making their life easier - at the expense of everyone else. You don't want them to have hurt feelings. That's the basis of your position.

 

I read the article.. Define "regularly seen". Its in your "study".

 

Ah yes, but we're not talking about gender equality, this proposal is about gender cancellation....you know, allowing boys and girls into each others domain, for example their toilets and change rooms....this is sick man...really sick..
imagine what the kids will feel..."sir the boys are coming into the girls change rooms and watching us shower"
"Well thats all right, honey, because theres no such thing as boys and girls...you can go into their change room if you like....".......that is sick.......

 

To all of those who said gay marriage would have zero impact on you, your family and society in general... I told you so.

And you better get used to hearing that because as the homosexuals get more emboldened by their normalizarion campaign, it will continue to get worse.

I told you so.

 

I am at a loss to understand how a curriculum such as this can be introduced without any type of
debate or consultation with parents. Is this how the educational system works in USA..any school in any
State can draft a curriculum in any way, shape or form, and the students just have to cop it....!!

 

Actually that is not the case. There are many animals that function as non-procreative members of a species. (worker bees) Just because homosexuality tends not to lead to offspring does not mean it is detrimental to the species proliferation.

 

,

That isn't gender.....

Still not gender

okay this statement is full of fail but you make a point in an ass backwards way. Certain parts of who a person is views the world in a culturally defined way.

Name a feminine behavior...... (this should be good)

you know that this statement is hateful and ignorant.

 

How many more schools will adopt this curriculum?

 

Thanks for doing exactly what I planned to do when I read those comments. I believe what it shows, if anything, that the number of LGBT characters might actually be low. Imagine that.

 

If so, then animal husbandry is about to become inefficient. Mom the two bulls haven't made a baby yet and I need a calf for my 4-H project....

 

You still don't understand what gender is.... maybe this will help

http://www.autostraddle.com/its-tim...cal-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/

 

Absolutely right. Social engineering at its finest.

 

An opinion piece from a blog.....yep, that is useful. Just about as useful as opinions on a political forum.

People redefining words for their own purpose does not make that new definition any more valid.

 

Oral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education. The only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity is comprehensive sex education. Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum and those opposed to homosexuality are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create" NEA spokeswoman Diane Schneider.

 

Gender is it takes a bull and a heifer to make a calf. Semantics does not change biology. I am not the one who needs help.

Even pine trees have male pine cones and female pine cones?

 

And then there was Dolly. Oh, well, can't win 'em all.

 

Dolly certainly didn't win. If she had a real mommy and daddy maybe she would not have to have suffered her half a normal life span fraught with illness.

 

Well, it's your choice if you'd like to remain willfully ignorant.

 

Dolly was the first mammal AFAIK, and wasn't a 100% success, but there have been many, many more since then.

 

Obviously, I disagree. It's an oversimplification, not reality.

What are you basing this parenthetical on? That hasn't been the case in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience.

No. You are talking a lot of nonsense with this.

No, we're not. The vast majority of people are, but not all of humankind. A person whose biology is mixed in some way is not fully biologically 'male' nor fully biologically 'female'. That mix of traits puts them somewhere between. And I'm strictly talking about biological sex in this context, as separate from gender identity.

Except what you obviously mean is that people should accept what you want them to be, and conform to that. No intersex or transgender or gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual person has any obligation to conform their lives to what you want concerning their identity. We don't have any obligation to pretend that human biology conforms strictly to your concept of sex as a male/female binary when it demonstrably does not in some people.

I'm reminded of the saying that you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You don't get to pretend the facts are something they aren't, and then demand that everyone else bow to your desire to oversimplify the human condition. Certainly you will be able to find like-minded individuals who will agree with your mistaken understanding of human biology. I am not one of them. I understand both the norms, and the exceptions. That you can't admit the existence of the exceptions, or insist that they somehow still fit into your mistaken perceptions concerning biological sex, isn't going to fly.

 

Or maybe they are.

Glad to see you at least admit "that you don't believe in the basic dignity and equality of all human beings". Seems there's really no point in further discussion, that being the case.

Doesn't really get more tone deaf than that.

Not in the least. Since you obviously aren't paying any real attention to the things I've said, and are instead choosing to view them through the lens of your own considerable bias, I will consider this interaction finished. No point in my wasting any more time on you.

 

Actually, my argument was quite sound. Changes to society have a cost. Despite all the claims that "every life matters" or that anything is worth doing if it just "saves one life", those sentiments are misplaced and false. Giving up cars completely would save many 1,000's of lives, but the cost to society would far exceed the benefit - and nobody is going to give up their car, they accept the risk, loss of life, and imposition on others.

Its the same with your argument that society must accommodate every oddity in the human condition.

 

What's ignorant about understanding the differences between the sexes? Boys and girls are different. Period. No amount of PC garbage will change nature.

 

Pathetic liberalism, that is all. Childish, ignorant.