School faces lawsuit for making student remove 'only two genders' shirt: 'Censoring a 7th-grader'

[Larniavc]

I don’t think it’s none of my business that the schools are condoning such behavior.

I see your point.

But if your reasons for not wanting the school to condone that behaviour are religious doesn't that run afoul of the Establishment Clause? You are trying to influence the school on the basis of your religion?

 

[Bradskii]

Wait, your internal sense of right and wrong did not tell you killing people was wrong?

That's....chilling.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The first affects everyone the second ONLY APPLIES TO CHRISTIANS!

Matthew 10:14 KJV
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

As Jesus said to satan when he was misquoting scripture “but the scriptures say” “but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18‬:‭6‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[ozso]

Yeah, but only for something I actual say, not what you imagine I say.

I was replying to:

I'm taking about the outside world where most people are not Christian and don't want busy bodies poking their noses into their business.

 

[ozso]

Wait, your internal sense of right and wrong did not tell you killing people was wrong?

Does that question apply to killing millions of babies via abortion? Probably not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In which way does (for example) being gay affect other people any more than (for example) being Christian?

It doesn't, but that's not the subject being addressed/protested by a shirt that says "there are only two genders"

That's why I think it was a mistake (long-term) for the LGB to welcome the parade of other acronym letters & symbols onto the movement.

I understand that at the time when you're in a relatively small group, you'll seek out alliances (even if there's not perfect overlap in goals), but I think we're past that at this point.

The original aims of the gay/lesbian/bi community were things marriage equality, workplace/housing discrimination protection, and things of that nature. (things that could accurately be described as a "just leave us alone" situation)

The ask from the trans & "+" activists today goes much further.

 

[ozso]

The only person trying to get attention is the 2 Genders kid.

Rather he is also is seeking attention and therefore is getting it. The difference is, no one is complaining about him getting attention. No one is saying leave the poor kid alone.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What did I say @ThatRobGuy? The argument is not based on anything other than a belief that people are sinning. Nothing else. It's a religious argument.

It's nice to have someone admit it rather then spend umpteen posts trying to dig out an admission. So, shall I check out how many threads we've had this year on drunkenness? Or maybe idolatry? All those that they stand firmly in opposition to? Gimme a minute....

OK, I checked. It was the number you first thought of. Zero. So what does that tell you about the sin that people are really worried about, despite them being firmly in opposition to all of them? Bzzz. Rob? Yes, correct. It's sex.

The Christian argument against certain things don't mirror my own.

I don't subscribe to the notion that simply because some sort of sexual activity goes against Christian teachings that it should be maligned. I'm not Christian, so why would I?

I've always taken up for the rights of people to sleep with and marry whoever they want. (which is why I opposed DOMA, and supported marriage equality and laws that prevent things like housing and workplace discrimination, and have vehemently opposed methods like conversion therapy for gay adolescents)

The ask of the original lesbian and gay advocates were very different than the ask of the trans & "+" activists of today. Both in terms of scope and degree of potential externalities involved.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

First up, I'm not admitting they are frivolous. I was pointing that fact out to someone who is so caught up in this anti lgbt cause that they'll take any nonsense and treat it seriously. That's the type of debate we're having. It's embarrassing to have to point out to someone that they are looking foolish.

That's a bit of a self-contradicting statement.

If something is "nonsense", and it's "embarrassing" to have to point out to someone that they look silly for taking it seriously, isn't that an admission that it's frivolous? If it wasn't, then then it wouldn't be foolish for someone to take it so seriously, right?

Secondly, the problem with saying that there are only two genders is wrong. There is nothing available to back up that claim other than the claim itself. Literally nothing. And it's a religious argument. God made man and woman and that's it.

While there are religious claims to that effect, that doesn't make it exclusively a religious argument.

There's also religious arguments against theft, murder, adultery, and gluttony...that doesn't mean that societies can't (and haven't) come to those conclusions from a secular perspective.

With regards to the topic of genders (and the relationship to biological sex), the overwhelming majority of societies throughout history (both from varying religions -both monotheistic and polytheistic-, and from secular ones) all seemed to drift toward those similar conclusions despite not collaborating with each other.

I think you're ignoring the possibility that some "social constructs" can and do exist for reasons pertaining to lived experiences and observation of the natural world, and aren't exclusively the result of religious indoctrination.

 

[Merrill]

I think the main problem is that in almost every instance, simply being welcoming and open to LGBT has gone from:

Allowing adults and minors to express their sexual orientation openly
Allowing gay adults to marry

to

drag-queen story hour
transing and castrating kids
putting books about deviant sexual practices in elementary-school libraries
asserting that kids can give consent, which opens the door to pederasty
demanding that corporations agree with and promote all of the above

Christians are generally OK with those two things at the top --but virtually no Christians support that other stuff on the bottom

this isn't really about homosexuality: it is about subverting western culture and morals. It is all part of the Neo-Marxist agenda

 

[DaisyDay]

No she’s arguing that according to you only one side should be able to voice their opinion about it.

If you are correct in your assessment of what they said, then they totally got my argument wrong.

That’s like saying hey let’s have a presidential election, everyone who wants to vote for Biden is allowed to vote but everyone against him is not allowed to vote.

Except that is neither what I said nor what I implied with my question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you are correct in your assessment of what they said, then they totally got my argument wrong.


Except that is neither what I said nor what I implied with my question.

But your argument was that inclusion should be allowed but not exclusion, am I correct?if so then my analogy fits that scenario perfectly. Everyone in favor of Biden is allowed a vote but not those who oppose him.

 

[ozso]

Since the school already has rainbow pride imagery displayed, I figure they already do. Now I'd rather there be neither t-shirt or imagery in public schools. However, if a school is going to have one, then by all fairness it should allow the other. But neither would be best.

You're arguing that inclusion is the same thing as exclusion?

No. I said if they are going to allow one it's only fair that they should allow the other.

Aside from that, I'd rather there be neither such t-shirts or imagery in public schools. No LGBTQA+ pride t-shirts, no 'there's more than two genders' t-shirts, no 'there are only two genders' t-shirts in public schools. And also no LGBTQA+ imagery, or the opposite thereof imagery in public schools. I don't think public schools should be displaying either the LGBTQA+ flag or the Christian flag for example.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yeah and it’s not just about educating my kids but all kids. I don’t want anyone to go to hell. Unfortunately society keeps pushing the bar of morality lower & lower with each generation. If we’re not the voice of opposition then we’re part of the problem.

Amen and Amen

 

[Hazelelponi]

Wait, your internal sense of right and wrong did not tell you killing people was wrong?

No... It's Islamic law - basically homosexuals are killed under the law to prevent exactly what we are now dealing with in America.

I did actually believe in Islamic law. I was a practicing, believing Muslim in every sense of the word, but I wasn't an extremist...

I was married to an Islamic extremist though. That was.... A story all it's own.

I was saved in 2014 .. and my entire worldview changed in the space of a heartbeat.

Salvation in Christ is very real, and it changes everything.... Everything.

 

[dzheremi]

With regards to the topic of genders (and the relationship to biological sex), the overwhelming majority of societies throughout history (both from varying religions -both monotheistic and polytheistic-, and from secular ones) all seemed to drift toward those similar conclusions despite not collaborating with each other.

I think you're ignoring the possibility that some "social constructs" can and do exist for reasons pertaining to lived experiences and observation of the natural world, and aren't exclusively the result of religious indoctrination.

I would take it one step further and say that it's not conjecture or a mere possibility that this is the case, but reveals something very deep about the cross-cultural conceptual organization of information in the human brain. When I was in grad school for my master's degree in Linguistics, one of the really important classes I took was with the great Dr. William Croft, a linguist who has published his very important work "Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective" with Oxford in 2001. While I never owned a copy of the book in question, the class he taught on the subject made the point (among many others) that there is a sort of 'animacy hierarchy' involved in the grammatical 'sexing' of animates, cross-linguistically (that is to say, around the world, in a myriad of different cultures). This animacy hierarchy explains not only why it is vastly more common to find sexed terms for cattle than for mosquitos (hint: it has to do with who is naming things in the first place), but also very important distinctions that humans make around the world regarding human beings -- i.e., why we have terms for man and woman, often for young man and young woman, also often for boy and girl, but much less often for 'male baby' and 'female baby'. This is what Dr. Croft referred to as the "neuter baby phenomenon", and it is indeed something that we found to be true around the world: because there is really no pressing reason to distinguish a male baby from a female baby in the vast majority of situations (it doesn't 'mean' anything for the tribe or the society), plenty of languages around the world just don't have terms for that. Your baby is just a baby, until it becomes reasonable to begin referring to it as a boy or a girl some years down the line. Note that none of this denies the biological reality of male and female babies. It is purely about what linguistic forms are found or not found around the world, and why.

On a personal level, because the above is a part of my academic background, when I look at all of this trans/multigender stuff, it is through this sort of lens. I am constantly asking myself "What conceptual space is being created here via this particular use of language, and towards what end?" The 'bias', if you will, towards a binarily-sexed world, if not entirely uncomplicated by several factors (e.g., intersexed people, various other conceptions of human gender in different societies around the world), is at least explainable with reference to the actual world in which we all live, regardless of how many genders of human being we think there are. This is why it is argued that this represents something deep about the organization of information in the brain: not because this is necessarily a matter of clean and discrete categorization or compartmentalization (the animacy hierarchy is more of a spectrum than a scale), but because the same patterns are found over and over again in a myriad of distinct cultures around the world who have had no real contact with each other, and hence cannot be assumed to be influenced by one another, or all embracing a similar religious or cultural worldview that might help explain what we see crop up again and again in linguistic structures found around the world.

 

[rjs330]

It's nobody's business except those that might need help, their family and their friends. And those that care will take advice as to the best course of action. This kid's parents have every right to hold whatever views they choose. But to involve their kid in this kind of political posturing is nothing short of disgraceful.

It's funny that you claim it's nobody's business and then your side makes it everybody's business by telling everyone they have to use the pronouns people want, you have to allow men in women's restrooms. You have to allow men in women's lockers rooms and allow men to shower with women. You have to allow men in women's sports. You have to Allow teachers to teach your kids all about different genders and LGBTQ education.

You've made it everyone's business. This is you doing this. And when a kid speaks his mind then you come after him and tell him it's none of his business. This is on you.

 

[rjs330]

But you want more of it. And this is not a discussion on lgbt per se. It's literally about gender identity. Which you have continuously told us that you simply don't understand. But you want parents to send their kids into schools wearing t-shirts bearing political slogans supporting your view. They want this kid on the frontline. They want him on nationwide tv. They want him in the pages of newspapers. They want his picture broadcast on the internet.

Absolutely shameful. But you won't complain. Because the child is wearing a t shirt on which is a message you want to promote.

But it's not shameful to do that with your gay or trans kid? How hypocritical of you.

 

[rjs330]

I dunno man, would you feel the same way about a kid wearing a rainbow pride t shirt to school?

They do it all the time and you don't see schools pulling them into the office and making them take it off. In fact teachers themselves do it.

 

[rjs330]

Yes! And wearing a t shirt to show that you are a hater of a protected demographic is something only a hateful person would do.

That's the argument a hater would use.