The NEA is pushing far left teaching upon children

[Stopped_lurking]

I am aware trans people don't feel they are simply masquerading, but all they can change is appearances and not biological facts. Androgyny is just another way of creating confusion, so yes it is also problematic.

Ok.

This is somewhat culturally dependent, but if there weren't clearly "feminine" and "masculine" presentations there would be no grounds for transgenderism in the first place.

So what are they in your culture? Also cisgendered persons play around with their presentation as well, there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between presentation and and gender identity. My guess is that there are many agender persons, that don't feel like the gender most commonly associated with their sex that still present as that gender. Would they be problematic, even if you knew how they felt?

 

[BCP1928]

I am aware trans people don't feel they are simply masquerading, but all they can change is appearances and not biological facts. Androgyny is just another way of creating confusion, so yes it is also problematic.

This is somewhat culturally dependent, but if there weren't clearly "feminine" and "masculine" presentations there would be no grounds for transgenderism in the first place.

So why do we insist on them; indeed, why do we insist on a particular version of them?

 

[Fervent]

So why do we insist on them; indeed, why do we insist on a particular version of them?

Because the essential distinction is important, even if its particular expression is negotiable.

 

[BCP1928]

Because the essential distinction is important, even if its particular expression is negotiable.

Why is it important? Who is going to be a biological mother and who is going to be a biological father is really beyond the reach of social distinctions.

 

[Fervent]

Why is it important? Who is going to be a biological mother and who is going to be a biological father is really beyond the reach of social distinctions.

Given the divergent moral bases we're working from, it's unllkely for us to come to a point of agreement.

 

[BCP1928]

Given the divergent moral bases we're working from, it's unllkely for us to come to a point of agreement.

In school it shouldn't be a moral issue at all, just facts about LGBT. We don't need to agree about it morally.

 

[Fervent]

In school it shouldn't be a moral issue at all, just facts about LGBT. We don't need to agree about it morally.

"Should" is a moral statement. Who decides what "should" be the case?

 

[Yarddog]

Jesus Christ would condemn the sinful teachings of the LGBTQ agenda.

Jesus would condemn the far right white Nationalist and any one that failed to love their neighbors.

 

[Fervent]

Jesus would condemn the far right white Nationalist and any one that failed to love their neighbors.

The question is, what does it mean to "love your neighbors" in this case? Indulging them at the risk of their souls, or being honest with them in the hope of their salvation?

 

[BCP1928]

"Should" is a moral statement. Who decides what "should" be the case?

I meant "shouldn't" in the vernacular sense of "I don't see any good reason for it." In particular, there is no justification for a public school to teach religious doctrine about it.

 

[Yarddog]

PROVE to me you understood this article.

He doesn't care what the article says. He saw LGTBQ+ and the rest doesn't matter.

 

[Hentenza]

I meant "shouldn't" in the vernacular sense of "I don't see any good reason for it." In particular, there is no justification for a public school to teach religious doctrine about it.

Or LGTBQ doctrine either.

 

[Yarddog]

The question is, what does it mean to "love your neighbors" in this case? Indulging them at the risk of their souls, or being honest with them in the hope of their salvation?

Which is closer?

 

[Yarddog]

I meant "shouldn't" in the vernacular sense of "I don't see any good reason for it." In particular, there is no justification for a public school to teach religious doctrine about it.

The article doesn't speak of teaching religious doctrine.

 

[BCP1928]

Or LGTBQ doctrine either.

Why not? "LGBT doctrine" is not a moral statement.

 

[BCP1928]

The article doesn't speak of teaching religious doctrine.

The prohibition of cross-dressing is a religious doctrine.

 

[Hentenza]

Why not? "LGBT doctrine" is not a moral statement.

It is moral when it requires others to adhere to the tenets. The demonization of those that disagree with it is quite possible and most likely probable.

 

[Hentenza]

The prohibition of cross-dressing is a religious doctrine.

That might be the case now but it was not the case as I was growing up. Many of us agnostics and atheists then would not tolerate it. It was merely something that society then did not embrace.

 

[Yarddog]

The prohibition of cross-dressing is a religious doctrine.

Not to Public Education.

 

[BCP1928]

It is moral when it requires others to adhere to the tenets. The demonization of those that disagree with it is quite possible and most likely probable.

What "tenets?" That it's legal and that many people find it acceptable and so kids should be taught about it in school?