Seattle high schooler marked incorrect on quiz for saying only women can get pregnant: report

[Ceallaigh]

It's even taking over small towns. Sad.

All of the claims that it's not happening will probably be followed by silence. That seems to be the pattern. They vehemently deny something is happening, call it paranoia and conspiracy theory. And then when it's become too prevalent to deny any longer, they go silent on the matter.

 

[iluvatar5150]

All of the claims that it's not happening will probably be followed by silence. That seems to be the pattern. They vehemently deny something is happening, call it paranoia and conspiracy theory. And then when it's become too prevalent to deny any longer, they go silent on the matter.

Does anybody deny that basics about transgenderism are being taught in school? I suppose some folks might, but I'm not aware that it's a predominant belief. IME, what most folks object to is the notion that there's some widespread attempt to convert kids.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Does anybody deny that basics about transgenderism are being taught in school? I suppose some folks might, but I'm not aware that it's a predominant belief. IME, what most folks object to is the notion that there's some widespread attempt to convert kids.

When kids gets told they're wrong about men not being able to become pregnant, it's obvious the agenda is to convert kids to having a trans mindset.

 

[iluvatar5150]

When kids gets told they're wrong about men not being able to become pregnant, it's obvious the agenda is to convert kids to having a trans mindset.

What is a "trans mindset"? I suppose I didn't word things very clearly, but when I said that "what most folks object to is the notion that there's some widespread attempt to convert kids", what I meant was that they object to the notion there's a movement to convert kids into becoming transgendered themselves, not that they object to the notion that there's a movement to get kids to be accepting of other people who are trans.

 

[Ceallaigh]

What is a "trans mindset"? I suppose I didn't word things very clearly, but when I said that "what most folks object to is the notion that there's some widespread attempt to convert kids", what I meant was that they object to the notion there's a movement to convert kids into becoming transgendered themselves, not that they object to the notion that there's a movement to get kids to be accepting of other people who are trans.

The objection is that kids are being taught there are umpteen genders and sexual orientations and that they are whatever they decide to identify as within all of that. That male and female are both interchangeable and indefinable etc. Needless to say, identifying as something unique is a big trend now among young people.

 

[eleos1954]

Thank God I do not have children and I don't put myself through that.

Mine is grown and didn't have to experience this deception.

 

[RDKirk]

From the article:



Perhaps it would've been better to answer in accordance with what the section taught, which, according to the article, was the distinction between sex and gender.

If that's the distinction being made, then a lesson about reproduction should have been about sex, not gender.

But then, the apologetic that "it's sex, not gender" is oldthink. Keep up! You're falling behind the newthink:

Biological Sex is a social construct

I recently tweeted, as an aside, that biological sex is a social construct, and the backlash and attacks were swift, incredulous and heavily reliant upon very basic biology. There is a common perce…

growinguptransgender.com

A social construct is when we put artificial boundaries around groupings that are really more complex and messy. Biological sex is certainly a social construct.

In order to prove biological sex is a social construct we only need to find one example of a person who does not fit into the two neat biological boxes outlined above.

 

[Jermayn]

Scientists: Follow the science!

The Science: Men can get pregnant. Female penis.

Welcome to clown world.

 

[AlexB23]

Only male seahorses can get pregnant, after the female transfers the eggs into the male's egg storage sack. No male mammals (mammals or humans that possess XY chromosomes) can get pregnant. So, the kid should have gotten the answer correct. Schools should be teaching more useful information such as how to pay taxes, cook food, budget or live independently and collaboratively, and social skills instead of this useless stuff. History aught to also be taught with an unbiased point of view. Math and science are also useful skills for logical reasoning. The concept of male humans being pregnant is illogical.

Seahorse info: How do seahorses differ from all other animals?

Aside: The New York Post is typically biased towards the right and stuff, but that article was actually pretty good. If only the centrist and moderate papers published this article, as the NY Post's other news is a bit skewed.

 

[dzheremi]

If that's the distinction being made, then a lesson about reproduction should have been about sex, not gender.

But then, the apologetic that "it's sex, not gender" is oldthink. Keep up! You're falling behind the newthink:

Biological Sex is a social construct

I recently tweeted, as an aside, that biological sex is a social construct, and the backlash and attacks were swift, incredulous and heavily reliant upon very basic biology. There is a common perce…

growinguptransgender.com

The thing that gets me about this is that I don't know anyone who denies that intersexed people exist and do not fit into the simple binary of male and female; but notice that the 'debate' is never about those people -- it's about whether people who are clearly not intersexed (i.e., people who do fit into the binary sex distinction that most people fit into) ought to be considered to be of whatever sex they feel they are according to their gender presentation.

I'm probably a fair bit more liberal on many social issues than most people here, but I have to be honest and say that it seems like there are some steps being skipped in this conversation.

 

[RDKirk]

The thing that gets me about this is that I don't know anyone who denies that intersexed people exist and do not fit into the simple binary of male and female; but notice that the 'debate' is never about those people -- it's about whether people who are clearly not intersexed (i.e., people who do fit into the binary sex distinction that most people fit into) ought to be considered to be of whatever sex they feel they are according to their gender presentation.

I'm probably a fair bit more liberal on many social issues than most people here, but I have to be honest and say that it seems like there are some steps being skipped in this conversation.

Well, after they declared Pluto was no longer a planet, proving that "planet" is just a social construct, this was bound to happen.

Joking, sorta.

But exceptions do not disprove the rule.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I had to explain to my Nephew why his teacher is wrong about this subject. I ask him if his male cats ever gave birth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Man means male, males have a penis. Woman means female, females have a vagina. What's posted above lengthy convoluted mental acrobatics, that can be condensed into simple reality ie some men/males think they are women/females and some women/females think they are men/males.

That doesn't comport with objective reality where sex and gender are actually way more complicated things. For the majority of people, this is how it works; but that isn't how it works for everyone.

Even if we completely ignore the issue of trans persons and focus purely on things like chromosomes and anatomy, things can be very complicated.

Here's an example: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - GeneReviews® - NCBI Bookshelf

Complete AIS means a genetically male individual (XY chromosomes) is by all outward observation female--they are born with a vagina, they develop secondary female sex characteristics during puberty. In fact, without genetic testing or checking to see if this person has ovaries (someone with Complete AIS lacks ovaries, they cannot get pregnant) there is simply no way to tell that they are genetically male. When they are born, they look female, so they are called female, they are raised as girls and become women, and they can go their entire lives not knowing that they are genetically male. The prevalence of Complete AIS affects is estimated to be between 2-5 in every 100,000 people

That's just one biological example of the complexity of this. We don't even have to talk about trans people, sex and gender is complicated.

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina is a broad generalization that is often true, but it is not always true.

For a person with Complete AIS what do we use to categorize them: Their genitals? Their chromosomes? The presence or lack of ovaries? It can be very complicated, and overly simplistic thinking simply doesn't jive with objective reality, with biology, or science.

Also, the argument that this affects so few people, that it's just like 0.002% of the population or so, and thus is statistically unimportant doesn't fly here. We are talking about real people, not statistics.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[iluvatar5150]

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina is a broad generalization that is often true, but it is not always true.

For a person with Complete AIS what do we use to categorize them: Their genitals? Their chromosomes? The presence or lack of ovaries? It can be very complicated, and overly simplistic thinking simply doesn't jive with objective reality, with biology, or science.

It's wild how sure so many folks can be about their own expertise in a subject. Even a little humility about the limitations of one's own understanding would go a long way towards cooling tensions.

But then, I suppose the anger and the resulting cruelty are the point.

 

[RDKirk]

For a person with Complete AIS what do we use to categorize them: Their genitals? Their chromosomes? The presence or lack of ovaries? It can be very complicated, and overly simplistic thinking simply doesn't jive with objective reality, with biology, or science.

Also, the argument that this affects so few people, that it's just like 0.002% of the population or so, and thus is statistically unimportant doesn't fly here. We are talking about real people, not statistics.

-CryptoLutheran

How does nature characterize them? Nature characterizes them as flukes, mutations not to be reproduced. That particular genetic line naturally dies.

 

[Ceallaigh]

That doesn't comport with objective reality where sex and gender are actually way more complicated things. For the majority of people, this is how it works; but that isn't how it works for everyone.

Even if we completely ignore the issue of trans persons and focus purely on things like chromosomes and anatomy, things can be very complicated.

Here's an example: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - GeneReviews® - NCBI Bookshelf

Complete AIS means a genetically male individual (XY chromosomes) is by all outward observation female--they are born with a vagina, they develop secondary female sex characteristics during puberty. In fact, without genetic testing or checking to see if this person has ovaries (someone with Complete AIS lacks ovaries, they cannot get pregnant) there is simply no way to tell that they are genetically male. When they are born, they look female, so they are called female, they are raised as girls and become women, and they can go their entire lives not knowing that they are genetically male. The prevalence of Complete AIS affects is estimated to be between 2-5 in every 100,000 people

That's just one biological example of the complexity of this. We don't even have to talk about trans people, sex and gender is complicated.

Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina is a broad generalization that is often true, but it is not always true.

For a person with Complete AIS what do we use to categorize them: Their genitals? Their chromosomes? The presence or lack of ovaries? It can be very complicated, and overly simplistic thinking simply doesn't jive with objective reality, with biology, or science.

Also, the argument that this affects so few people, that it's just like 0.002% of the population or so, and thus is statistically unimportant doesn't fly here. We are talking about real people, not statistics.

-CryptoLutheran

It's about mainstreaming the rapidly growing trend of transsexualism. The same trend flourished in the Roman Empire right before its decline.

 

[Ceallaigh]

How does nature characterize them? Nature characterizes them as flukes, mutations not to be reproduced. That particular genetic line naturally dies.

And we know this really isn't about rare anomalies. It's about the trend of what people decide to "identify" as. 99.9% of "men who become pregnant" are just ordinary biological females who "identify" as ie pretend to be male.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How does nature characterize them? Nature characterizes them as flukes, mutations not to be reproduced. That particular genetic line naturally dies.

But we don't regard our neighbor as a mutant or a fluke, but as a human being made in the image of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's about mainstreaming the rapidly growing trend of transsexualism. The same trend flourished in the Roman Empire right before its decline.

Oh, did it now?

 

[RDKirk]

But we don't regard our neighbor as a mutant or a fluke, but as a human being made in the image of God.

-CryptoLutheran

And we have done that. We know how to treat benignly, for instance, persons born with a malformation of an arm or leg without declaring that having a deformed arm or leg is not what it is.