Off Topic Messages

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:02 am

likethebike wrote:And let's face it as a woman, she does not look that abnormal although it is unfair to judge just from a head shot.


Really? Not very flattering for some of the women on the board. Looks like a guy in a wig to me.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:11 am

I apologize for a miscommunication on the whim part. I mixed that with your point about the community but it was my argument on that front. I did not mean any way to twist your words.

My disagreement here is the trauma/sexual politics/ etc thrust in front of the children. The argument is not that the person makes a point of having had the operation in front of the kids. This would be thrusting sexual politics in front of the kids. The only thing under dispute is that the teacher has had the operation and continues teaching. Until someone makes it an issue it's not an issue. As I pointed out and I don't mean this to be disparaging in any way, there are many older women with a masculine look or demeanor. It's not as if the teacher is flashing the kids her genitals as proof of the operation and it is clearly not the elephant man in class. The look of a transexual is not as dramatic as the visage of a clown. It just isn't it seems to you because you've had this stuff drilled into your head. This is the essence of the disagreement here in that you act as if the teacher is teaching the value of sex changes.

Again I go back to my original point which I very much feel needs to be addressed here but in the world at large. As long we're going to be here, there are going to be people with these impulses. Do you want to just toss them away from society to live on scraps and crumbs and die? If you don't want to look them, if you want them to have access to jobs etc. that is what is going to happen.

I approach this not from any liberal agenda but from a human agenda.

As I know for myself I confronted a subject at an early age and my parents maybe tossed off a line but certainly no lesson and it was not traumatizing to me then and it is not a traumatizing idea now. In fact, if that was the worst thing that happened to me as a kid I would be one lucky kid.

As for the it's all for the children, that's an argument I have never made. For me children are too often invoked to distort an issue by playing on our sentiments.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:20 am

Thanks Bike.........I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

My issue with this person is simply this...........why not go ELSEWHERE to work instead of forcing those who will inevitably be confronted with her decision to deal with it??

I have no problem with him/her working........as long as her trap remains shut about her private life.That is an impossibility if she remains where she has current and former students. I would rather she moved on from teaching children, however, since it is apparent by her actions that she doesn't care about flaunting her decision.

As I said, her conduct has been selfish and callous........and transsexual or not, I don't want someone like that influencing my children.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:32 am

Using my own childhood as a judge I just don't think it's as obvious to the kids as you think. I know my own reaction would have been that something is "off" about this teacher but if a kid can't process that information as you claim, I don't see how it can go further especially as I now find out this is a substitute teacher. It's not as if deep relationships with the kids developed when she was a man.

I think maybe the "sub" thing is why not go to work elsewhere. There isn't the time and exposure to the kids that there might be in another circumstance.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:18 pm

Image
Mr. / Ms. McBeth

Raising and protecting out children is no mere sentiment, although it can be overused. I'll part company with comedian Bill Maher on that issue, as he'll never be a father.

For a lot of us, it is personal and having a kid changes a lot. I would not allow any school to have a transexual teaching my kid. Maybe, maybe, in high school they could handle it, but as a young child, absolutely not.

It seems Scatter has argued most of the points I would make here but I'll try to chime in as follows. I respect and even aspire to "tolerate" as much as Likethebike does and I mean that sincerely. I think the above discussion is about the intersection of the individual and the community or society.

I'm glad that ex-cons can be redeemed and occcasionaly rise to new heights of productive lives and employment. But certain occupations, such as school teacher, should be off-limits.

Got a sex change? Expect not to be teaching Mrs. Jones' 7-year old in class next fall. Perhaps it is a "bias," but not all biases are bad things.

And while women age and by some degree technically take on more masculinity (deeper voices -but not always- more wrinkles,etc.) it doesn't negate the usual sense that it's a woman. (Granny doesn't look like a dude all of a sudden.) (Old men, incidentally recall the look of an infant, but I digress.

But this guy? Well, we know what he was and frankly he does have that "off" look. I don't mean to be glib, but you can bet he has "man hands" and an adam's apple. Most of us can tell -and how one ever lives down such news I'll never know. Kids are unusually cruel as they get a little older, to boot.


There's always a balance to be had. I'd like to think that no one here wishes a horrible fate for this clearly-troubled (sorry) person named McBeth. (Again, he's 71, has fathered and raised children and wants to teach Jane Doe's kids as well.)

But as a society we all reach limits. We won't stop (or can't stop) this thing they call "sex change" (I personally think it's a fooling with nature) but don't expect to have equal protection under the law. Life has consquences and we all don't win when we pursue our our "inner" dreams.

It's just off the table when it comes to teaching our kids -outside of those few liberal zipcodes in places like Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the the credo is to "never judge, never judge." And is this wise counsel? Not in the wilderness. As much as society is built as a respite from it all, it is also cynical about motives, and those who would hurt (or frighten) the sense of normality we choose to emphasize.

Society ought to assign points of value to some things. Call it morality as I hinted (and GG picked up) or not, but we do value some lifestyles more than others and I suspect that it will always be that. We've come around to accepting, some would say embracing gay people, but shall it become fully normalized? I don't know. But sex changes? I don't see the obligation.

Equality is a fine value but not the only one we care about.

I personally am glad that individuals have to reckon with community reaction. It acts as a check on such excesses.

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:29 pm

Basically what you're saying is that children shouldn't have to look at anything you deem unattractive and I don't agree with that. As I said before it's not normal to take drugs into your system to prolong your life.

Kids in inner city have guns classrooms. Others have to run a gauntlet of gangs and pushers on the way to school. Other kids are being taught in a closet. Other kids are being taught by incompetent teacher. Other kids are being taught in classrooms where the temperature is always 100 degrees. Other kids are having their heads handed to them by parents on a daily basis. Others are even being molested by parents. Meanwhile towns don't have enough money to finance schools because of state and federal budget crunches. Nobody can find anybody to teach math and science these days. States and the federal government are pouring so many diversified mandates on public schools that the kids in the classroom don't have time to lear anything anymore. As I said before, if this is is the worst distraction that comes a kid's way while he is growing up that's one lucky kid.

Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:32 am

Not just unattractive,but freaky -and a procedure we should not endorse.

Life is also very biased by looks, in terms of certain jobs. And it's not just the looks but the fact that the person is a walking surgical nightmare, whether we say it out loud or not.

You need not be a Christian Scientist like the late Muppeteer Jim Henson (against taking life-saving drugs) to think that "sex-changes" are not to be encouraged, especially around children. It's about drawing lines and saying, "sorry, no."

Our heart doesn't have to break for everyone who wants to "volunteer" or "keep teaching. ..retirement wouldn't suit me."

No, we need not have 71-year olds guys like McBeth hanging around to "help out." That person deserves to be put out to pasture - or at least a new town.

We don't have to throw up our hands on the ills you describe and throw the gates open. It reminds me of some of the approaches to illegal immigration, when folks change the subject (so "hard-working) as well as say "they're already here, etc."

Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:51 am

There's no logic in your reasoning. No one has made a legitimate argument why this is bad or immoral. It's not natural doesn't work unless you're willing to dismiss almost every medical procedure ever done. It's freaky is just downright prejudiced. Looking odd is not freaky. I have seen many women who have not had sex changes with Adam's apples with mustasches with big frames. The bias that you have makes you see it that way but there is no PRACTICAL reason to assume immorality with this action or why this image should be disturbing unless you're willing to lock everyone up who has a disfigurement, who has had plastic surgery etc. There is no PRACTICAL reason this would "harm" a child.

I have said this many times before but we really have to grow about sex and gender in this culture.

Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:07 am

likethebike wrote:There's no logic in your reasoning. No one has made a legitimate argument why this is bad or immoral. It's not natural doesn't work unless you're willing to dismiss almost every medical procedure ever done. It's freaky is just downright prejudiced. Looking odd is not freaky. I have seen many women who have not had sex changes with Adam's apples with mustasches with big frames. The bias that you have makes you see it that way but there is no PRACTICAL reason to assume immorality with this action or why this image should be disturbing unless you're willing to lock everyone up who has a disfigurement, who has had plastic surgery etc. There is no PRACTICAL reason this would "harm" a child.

I have said this many times before but we really have to grow about sex and gender in this culture.



Are you for real??..........time and time again Greg, Scatter, and GG have all made very good points against it, you just dont get the point do you?

If you believe it right that trans-sexuals should be allowed to teach our children you are one immoral, sick, twisted individual.

It IS bad, and it IS immoral........You obviously have no children.

Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:58 pm

No one has once stated WHY they believe the operation is immoral. In my mind it's not immoral act nor is it a moral act, it's just an act. That it's odd does not make it immoral. My instinct tells me it's a parents issue of people feeling that if they are forced to look at such a person it will force them to question their own sexuality.

Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible "If You do it to the least of mine, you do it to me." It's easy to throw stones when it's someone else who is outside the mainstream, when it's you it's not so easy anymore. Except if it is you I would probably go to bat for you just as would this person.

Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:13 pm

likethebike wrote:No one has once stated WHY they believe the operation is immoral. In my mind it's not immoral act nor is it a moral act, it's just an act. That it's odd does not make it immoral. My instinct tells me it's a parents issue of people feeling that if they are forced to look at such a person it will force them to question their own sexuality.


Correct.

F-E-A-R is what drives intolerance and hatred.

While this specific case may be genuinely perplexing for the children, it also presents an opportunity to do exactly what this person has pledged themselves to do: teach. Teaching and learning is always the way forward. Always.

Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:09 pm

Cryogenic wrote
Correct.

F-E-A-R is what drives intolerance and hatred.

While this specific case may be genuinely perplexing for the children, it also presents an opportunity to do exactly what this person has pledged themselves to do: teach. Teaching and learning is always the way forward. Always.


Yes OF COURSE.........the adult MUST come before the children :?

You just don't get it do you??

Us parents don't want SMH's (surgically mutilated human's).... teaching our children!!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:27 pm

likethebike wrote:I have seen many women who have not had sex changes with Adam's apples with mustasches with big frames.

You've been to the centre of Newcastle on a Saturday night then? :wink:

Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:30 pm

likethebike wrote: I have seen many women who have not had sex changes with Adam's apples with mustasches with big frames.


Now see here Bike. You leave my wife out of this!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:50 pm

Good one Pete. Don't let her see that though.

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:47 pm

LiketheBike wrote:

"There's no logic in your reasoning. No one has made a legitimate argument why (sex-changing) is bad or immoral. It's not natural doesn't work unless you're willing to dismiss almost every medical procedure ever done. "

Again, I think you too readily buy into the notion that someone can even "change" their sex. I don't think all medical procedures rise to the level of changing such a key fact of life of what one's sex is, especially after 71 years. I see no reason why you can't understand that changing one's sex strikes at the heart of our humanity and civilization since time first began. I'm not making it up. One one level, I'm just reporting the news.

If nothing else, concede that this is indeed a radical new terrain. This isn't a nip and a tuck of some excess skin on one's face nor is it getting your gallstone removed. You may want it to be that, but it'll always be something to blink about.

You find this line arbitrary but I say with all due respect that it is you who is too wed to your purity of "logic" in not seeing how troublesome (and yes, by most definitions, immoral and certainly unsanctioned) it is to change one's sex through medical procedure. (And I'm not speaking about the very rare "assignments" that are sometimes made in medicine. It's not minor, period. There are profound ramifications, psychologically and otherwise associated with such new-fangled procedures- including losing one's preferred employment.

Likethebike wrote:

"It's freaky is just downright prejudiced. Looking odd is not freaky. I have seen many women who have not had sex changes with Adam's apples with mustasches with big frames. The bias that you have makes you see it that way but there is no PRACTICAL reason to assume immorality with this action or why this image should be disturbing unless you're willing to lock everyone up who has a disfigurement, who has had plastic surgery etc. There is no PRACTICAL reason this would "harm" a child. "

You can conduct such open-mindedness on your own or future children. As for me, I willing to stick to my gut sense that it is not akin changing one's dirty shirt or socks - or having a gallstone removed.

Again, prejudice is no dirty word in every case, at least for those of us who don't want our kids exposed to actual medical/ social experiments that didn't exist except in severe cases until recently.

"Cryogenic" wrote:
"F-E-A-R is what drives intolerance and hatred. While this specific case may be genuinely perplexing for the children, it also presents an opportunity to do exactly what this person has pledged themselves to do: teach. Teaching and learning is always the way forward. Always."


The people must always be disavowed and "taught" to re-think their ancient biases? Sometimes but to what extent? Maybe they're right and you're wrong. And "fear" can be actually a good thing, although like the red herring term "homophobia," here it's more of about illigitimacy and disapproval. There is a lot to fear in this world and as parents (you're not one yet but you may yet be one) you'll recognize the utility of good-old fashioned horse sense about right, wrong and yes, "normal."

It merits profound suspicion for anyone to "change" their sex. By nearly universal agreement, it is by definition "freaky" to the core and not something we want our children to be around. Period.

Likethebike wrote:
"I have said this many times before but we really have to grow about sex and gender in this culture."


It's fashionable for some to say that those we disagree with need to "grow up" about this or that. I've probably said it myself, as I actually think Americans are overly-prudish on some issues involving sexuality. But the notion that liberals are somehow elevated in their libertine sense of "live and live" is mere self-congratulation, and not linked to real world atttudes of values what most of us think we ought to aspire to and expose our kids to.

Oh, they'll always be a liberal community here and there that thinks sex-change teachers are just fine, and that the neighborhood junkie or rapist can be rehabilated (fill in the blank with another non-judgemental nostrum) but the rest of the world will continue to draw the line somewhere and just embrace the words, "no thank you" and "hello, margins of society."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likethebike wrote:
"No one has once stated WHY they believe the operation is immoral. In my mind it's not immoral act nor is it a moral act, it's just an act. That it's odd does not make it immoral. My instinct tells me it's a parents issue of people feeling that if they are forced to look at such a person it will force them to question their own sexuality. "


See responses above. It strikes at the core of our being and what we think is immutable, that is, the sex we're born with. Factor in various religious beliefs of multiple faiths and you're talking outright sacrilige, like it or not, subscribe or not.

And the question of one's sexuality is a red herring, commonly used, that serves or attempts to throw the opposite side off balance. It's besides the point, really, and not something most of us are in any time going to entertain by looking at someone like Mr. / Ms. McBeth. (And to be sure, not a few such transgender sorts are quite passible, even attractive. But it's not something we want to see in our kids' classrooms or as a new theme or a charactor in our kid's "Winnie the Pooh" books. It is devient, abnormal but existing behavior.

With children, "it is what it is" doesn't pass muster in creating healthy kids, especially young ones. Why push every divergence onto them? You may say it's not about kids, but some of us think that's a good way to frame some issues -especially school issues.

Later on, they can learn about the diversity and doings of the world. We probably can't or won't outlaw such things, but we need not "normalize" it. That's what many liberals like yourself would like to see but it's not going to happen. Not on that grand or profound of a scale. (I see the "gay marriage" issue as being exhibit "A" in over-reach, for example.)

Likethebike wrote:

"Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible "If You do it to the least of mine, you do it to me." It's easy to throw stones when it's someone else who is outside the mainstream, when it's you it's not so easy anymore. Except if it is you I would probably go to bat for you just as would this person."


Why the fetish, if you'll pardon the pun, with the "embattled individual"? I like the "little guy" as much as the next person, but since when does the minority get to fully dicate to the majority? Sometimes, if not many times, that's a good thing - but not in all cases. Let's be real about the balance our democratic society attempts to keep. McBeth is not entitled to his teacher job, and moreover, one wonders if his children (yes, his grown children) are not as sanguine as you are about "going to bat" for Pop's radical "do-over."

As for the Bible quote, it's not as if the Bible (and other faiths) don't ask anything of the believer. It's actually not just about blind love and acceptence. There are such things as "sin" and "abomination" and I'm betting the Frankenstein-like changing one's sex is one of them. The sense that no one can ever be judged is really is a dead end. For the record, I'm not even the most devout soul out there, so I speak a "sinner" as well. In that sense, I'm defending the faith of millions who keep much of our society strong in many cases and should not be ridiculed as "old-fashioned or "out of step." On the latter, it's the opposite in fact.

So we obviously disagree. I think the American left will forever see the GOP dismantle all the good things the Democrats helped bring into the US as long as the pointless indulgence of championing extremist social agendas that few (if any) can get behind on the popular level.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:18 am

LTB.

You have no answer to that.

Greg Nolan came here with "THE TRUTH"!!

LTB........Your pc views are nothing short of bloody pathetic.............shall we also give MJ his own childrens afternoon show.......hell, give Elton John his own prime time "gay" fu*k fest......and while were at it lets let charles manson out, and send him to Barbados on holiday after all he was missunderstood as a young man.

You do-gooders are crippling the very foundations of society with your stupid liberalist ideal's.
Last edited by the squirrel on Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:31 am

Squirrel, you and I have never had problems in the past, so please take this in the spirit it is intended.........

Can you try to address the ideas you find objectionable rather than transferring your ojections upon the people personally??

I disagree with a ton of Bike's views, and he with mine, but we manage to be great friends anyway.

Just a suggestion, and you may well tell me to bug off........but I thought I'd offer the suggestion anyway.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:08 am

Likethebike certainly doesn't have abusive arrogant abrasive ugly manners on this MB.
Of all the Left-leaning members, LTB is the most civil and diplomatic in debating. he rarely ever insults any of us.

I strongly disagree with his liberal views and since this weird freaky topic has progressed, I doubt I would trust him to babysit :shock: but even I have pulled my punches person-to-person with him and afford him a decent debate because he doesn't have a "pr*ck personality" and he's nice to read on Elvis threads.

I wonder if Likethebike wishes he had never commented at all on this transgender topic. :?: I feel he's dug himself a hole and all the wistful free-spirit liberated utopian ideology in the world can't lift him out of it.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:37 am

Actually quite not. There's a point to be made here and a big one that I've been trying to make is when it's someone else's deviation from the norm people feel free to throw stones. But when it's them it's quite a different story and if someone's rights are being infringed upon I'm going to speak up about that. In my day I have seen heard and read about too many people called freaks and being denied a chance to live a normal life.

Greg- You talk of a sense of self and humanity. Isn't it possible that with nine billion people in the world (I think that was right at last count.) some people are not comfortable in their skins and who or what they are? As I pointed out before and this is very important I think, this is not a whim. This is something this man may have thought about for much of the last 70 years. It costs a lot of money, it takes a lot of time, if the operation is publicized you can be embarassed as this man has been, plus as you point out it's a fundamental change. The operation wouldn't exist if there weren't some need for it, a public demand. Would someone take such a drastic step if they weren't positively sure? These people believe there is something wrong with them (please don't take this out of context with the obvious responses I can hear in my head- "Darn right there's something wrong with them."). As things stand for them things are not working. What's wrong with taking a step that could allow them to be happy, that maybe could fix what's going on inside them?

You speak often of this being thrust in the child's face. Yet there is no allegation that the man is holding lectures on the merits of sex change operations. He is not raping the children or holding lessons in sodomy. The only way a child knows for sure what is up with this teacher is if an adult tells them and if the person is a reasonable fascimile of a woman why would the question even come up. Here's there's a little room for that since he's returning to a school but in general it probably wouldn't come up.

There's a lot of talk you don't have the right to do so and so and work if you're so and so. Well there is no right guaranteeing that our sensibilties can't be offended. To me if a person makes such a life altering decision, who am I to stand in that person's way because I find their looks off-putting. To me it seems very selfish. The thing I am surrendering is having to look at something maybe offensive or disquieting where this person is maybe giving up their entire life. It's not a fair trade.

There's also a lot of talk about majority rule. This is a red herring. The majority dominates the lives of the minority almost to tyranny from the movies you see on the screen to the food you buy in the store etc. That's fine as far as it goes but the real push this complaint of being pushed around by the minority is the fact that there is bullying aspect of some of the majority who refuse to cede any ground on any issue. The so called "War On Christmas" was a great example. While I agree that is stupid and foolish for someone to take offense at a Merry Christmas or demand that it not be said. However, it is also equally foolish to throw a hissy fit because say Walmart (in a dollars based decision) decides to include other cultures and beliefs- that celebrate around the same time of year- in a more generic and innocuos "Happy Holidays". The idea to even acknowledge that the dominant culture is not the only culture sends some mavens into a rage.

It's the same thing here. One person gets who has a sex change operation gets a job as a teacher and the entire culture is falling apart. Because one person does something you find offensive and can still make a living his chosen trade is simply too much to bear.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:40 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I don't think all medical procedures rise to the level of changing such a key fact of life of what one's sex is, especially after 71 years. I see no reason why you can't understand that changing one's sex strikes at the heart of our humanity and civilization since time first began. I'm not making it up. One one level, I'm just reporting the news.


How does changing one's sex "strike at the heart of our humanity and civilization", exactly? Funny: I thought things like mass deforestation, CFCs and nuclear waste are the real things "striking" at our humanity and not just civilisation - but the well-being of our ENTIRE planet.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:If nothing else, concede that this is indeed a radical new terrain. This isn't a nip and a tuck of some excess skin on one's face nor is it getting your gallstone removed.


If this is as "radical" as you're making out, why are you treating it so assuredly and hatefully?

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:You find this line arbitrary but I say with all due respect that it is you who is too wed to your purity of "logic" in not seeing how troublesome (and yes, by most definitions, immoral and certainly unsanctioned) it is to change one's sex through medical procedure. (And I'm not speaking about the very rare "assignments" that are sometimes made in medicine. It's not minor, period. There are profound ramifications, psychologically and otherwise associated with such new-fangled procedures- including losing one's preferred employment.


There's a complex mismash of ideas in here:

1) How is a sex change "immoral"? Since you feel so passionately against the whole idea, please give reasons as to why you think: a) morality even enters into it, and b) the act itself is immoral.

2) If the ramifications are profound, why is your response to simply shield your children from it and not enter into a healthy and intelligent discourse with them?

3) The loss of one's employment speaks more of the prejudices of the employer than inherent failings with the employee. I agree this is is a tangible consequence -- but that just shows you how ignorant and backwards most people are.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:You can conduct such open-mindedness on your own or future children. As for me, I willing to stick to my gut sense that it is not akin changing one's dirty shirt or socks - or having a gallstone removed.


I think there's an echo in here.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:And "fear" can be actually a good thing, although like the red herring term "homophobia," here it's more of about illigitimacy and disapproval. There is a lot to fear in this world and as parents (you're not one yet but you may yet be one) you'll recognize the utility of good-old fashioned horse sense about right, wrong and yes, "normal."


Fear exists to be recognised, confronted and overcome. If we let fear prevail, we wouldn't have started talking to each other and making huge advancements in all spheres of life: art, literature, politics, philosophy and science.

Gregory Nolan Jr wrote:It merits profound suspicion for anyone to "change" their sex. By nearly universal agreement, it is by definition "freaky" to the core and not something we want our children to be around. Period.


From "profound ramifications" to "profound suspicion" to "freaky to the core" to "not something we want our children to be around". You managed to hop an entire galaxy of logic with each statement -- but got closer to your true thoughts with every subsequent remark. Well done.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:It's fashionable for some to say that those we disagree with need to "grow up" about this or that. I've probably said it myself, as I actually think Americans are overly-prudish on some issues involving sexuality. But the notion that liberals are somehow elevated in their libertine sense of "live and live" is mere self-congratulation, and not linked to real world atttudes of values what most of us think we ought to aspire to and expose our kids to.


What's this labelling nonsense? I don't think you have to be "liberal" or "conservative" to believe whole-heartedly in what is written in the constitution of America itself (surely words for all democratic societies to live up to): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Oh, and mirroring LTB here, let's not turn any part of that enlightened text - specifically, the "that all men" part - into a joke.) Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. You are denying people that desire or have had sex change procedures all three of these things -- by condemning both them and passing your bigotry onto your children.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:It strikes at the core of our being and what we think is immutable, that is, the sex we're born with. Factor in various religious beliefs of multiple faiths and you're talking outright sacrilige, like it or not, subscribe or not.


Another echo. Oh, and:

Like not. Subscribe not.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:But it's not something we want to see in our kids' classrooms or as a new theme or a charactor in our kid's "Winnie the Pooh" books. It is devient, abnormal but existing behavior.


How is it "devient (sic)"?

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Later on, they can learn about the diversity and doings of the world. We probably can't or won't outlaw such things, but we need not "normalize" it. That's what many liberals like yourself would like to see but it's not going to happen. Not on that grand or profound of a scale. (I see the "gay marriage" issue as being exhibit "A" in over-reach, for example.)


I actually agree in not exposing children to just anything. That would be foolish and irresponsible. But so would metaphorically placing a veil over their heads and only lifting it after years of limited exposure to the infinite complexities of the real world. People need to start learning sooner rather than later.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:As for the Bible quote, it's not as if the Bible (and other faiths) don't ask anything of the believer. It's actually not just about blind love and acceptence. There are such things as "sin" and "abomination" and I'm betting the Frankenstein-like changing one's sex is one of them.


Betting? You don't know? Back to bible class with you, m'boy!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:19 pm

Save your 20-something condescension -and spelling checks- for someone else, Cryo. I'm not as secular as you, but I'm not easily lumped in otherwise, either. It's so convenient to assume that I'm quoting scripture. I'm telling you how mainstream America cringes at such excesses -and for good reason, not "fear." You want to write a philosphical treatis on it, but chaulk it up to the limits of human compassion. We're horrible creatures, aren't we?

And as the posts from Scatter and GG above illustrate about Likethebike, many of us prefer to speak honestly without personal insults. And I'm as big a critic of the worlds ills and don't need a 23 year old telling me I don't care, nor a lecture on so-called fear. Disapproval is what it is. And I felt the same in my 20s, by the way. Live and let live, who could disagree? And it wasn't that long ago either - but advancing conservatism is often the function of one's place or stage in life, particularly when it comes front and center in what you want your children exposed to, or what you want your society condemning. When something at stake besides one's own beard-scratching self, it's a whole 'nother story.

And like I said, I was atttempting to explain the mainstream bias against sex changes, not say that it meets the logical or uber-liberal criteria of you and Likethebike, both of whom safely speak (unless I stand corrected) as non-parents. It may not pass Kantian muster to some, but then so does little else in the world. It's "unfair" when people are hired because they are pleasant or attractive. Try to stop that. And try to dislodge the bias against sex-change persons, especially in a child-oriented setting.

And the notion that you're dealing with a some kind of "hater" is ludicrous. I don't have to flash my liberal credentials, but it's sad the once great philosopy of liberalism (in the USA at least) has come to championing lost, non-populist causes. And I say that as someone who once formed a local chapter of the ACLU - and only later wised up about how their original missioin of defending the little guy but also malcontents, criminals, terrorists, baby rapists, you name it now is coming too often at the expense of society.

It's embarrassing that neither one of you seem to want to even admit that sex change is something that is a new frontier akin to finding out that the sun won't be coming up every day or that oxygen supplies will be going down shortly. It's never going to be normal, I've got news for you.

This is a finite issue and luckily on the margins, where it belongs. It's never going to be a mainstream issue. It's sad that those I'd agree with on issues of economics, social policy, foreign policy, enviromental policy and the like are so consumed with sticking up for 71-year old teachers who want to be the next subject of "show & tell" in kindergarten.

Bias is not inherently bad, despite what some here express. Indeed, non-judgmentalism something that one can get carried away with. McBeth is hardly worth the political capital and really is a poor choice for sex change poster boy/girl. There are more sympathic stories out there than him - and I'd still bristle at them teaching young kids. So be it.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:47 pm

I, too, fail to see what's wrong with a sex change.

Fortunately, they take a person's rights seriously in New Jersey.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:56 pm

Oh, it's just like changing your shirt or taking off your boots.

I think the most inflamed part of this (it's otherwise not news, sadly) has to do with the school setting.

There's a side current that the guy is 71 years old and has grown children, too.

Image

I suppose you cheered the face transplant woman in France, too. :shock:
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:00 pm

Greg

you wrote:Oh, it's just like [...] taking off your boots.

Eeek! Ok, I'll never ask again.