you seem to approach things like this with an open mind and have generally progressive viewpoints.
Well, I'm not a staunch Republican and I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong or have changed my mind on a topic when it's appropriate.
Perhaps you're gleaning that from my opinions re: Native Americans, gay marriage, global warming and my anti-religious beliefs? I'd say my beliefs in those areas are definitely progressive.
I wouldn't even necessarily say my opinions come from having an open mind. They've come from me actively seeking out opinions on both sides and seeing which one made the most logical sense to me. I need something to be soundly logical to accept it. And I'm trying to see the logic in the argument that we can't acknowledge gender and need to change our rules because a small handful of people aren't comfortable with the way they or their kids feel as a result of them identifying with the opposite gender.
I'm not saying that I don't think people with these gender complications/confusion shouldn't be accepted/welcomed. They absolutely should. And moreover, they shouldn't be bullied.
My opinion is that schools shouldn't be pretending genders don't exist and to be allowing special privileges to kids whose parents have decided their children should buck the ages old social trend of being a boy or girl. Instead, they should focus on developing the positives of both genders and teaching kids to be good people who accept one another regardless of what they're like, so long as they behave as good people.
Yet somehow you have found the most convincing argument to not be the one made by the teachers/parents/scientists with actual experience, but with the guy talking about irrelevant national traitors and taxpayer dollars paying for surgeries, talking about how society shouldn't cater to minorities and making arguments that are word for word the same as ones against gay marriage.***
I take it you're looking at the posts I've liked and believe that i agree with everything he's saying. I don't agree with everything Q-Tip is saying in here and I'll get to that.
You can safely assume that if you view certain of his arguments, as irrelevant that I do as well. But I do agree with the gist of his argument which you'll see below.
I haven't seen any opinions from scientists. Which ones are you referring to? Scientists are generally whom I will end up agreeing with the opinions from, so I'm open to seeing those. I can tell you that I don't agree with many of the opinions coming out of the psychologly as relates to diagnoses of mental disorders, so if it's psychology I'm going to be less likely to accept is as gospel unless the studies are extremely sound.
As far as parents go...I think most of them are pussies now. The AYSO mentality is alive and well and it's negative. There's a general expectation that teachers be a direct extension of the way parents are raising their kids, regardless of what kind of strange or alternative beliefs they employ at home. I'm annoyed by the belief a lot of parents have that they and their kids quirks need to be catered to moreso than developing or in this case, continuing, rules and approaches that are showing no logical issues (ie boys and girls are inherently different) after years of employ.
And I think this is an extension of that. As
@David. mentioned, alpha macho bullshit doesn't work. It makes a large portion of males into insecure, ignorant assholes and it leads to misogyn, abuse, fights and animalistic behavior. But I'm having trouble being convinced that once kids see bilogical differences between their private parts, the way they go to the bathroom and the way their bodies develop and the way personalities naturally form...it makes sense to just ignore these things and pretend there's a better way to divide them up, if divisions must be made.
The reason I don't agree with this philosophy isn't because I'm not being open-minded. It's because I think the argument isn't sound at all. They're identifying a problem that doesn't exist and applying a solution that isn't necessary.
It's just strange, i have no reason to believe you haven't approached this with an open mind, but somehow you have got the notion that this is about making people the same when it's really quite the opposite.
Here's what I see:
I see people pointing out that many people grow up and find they don't identify with many of the norms/expectations of their gender.
Then as they look back on their childhood, they believe that gender roles were forced on them. They were taught to play with trucks and play sports and get dirty. To like blue instead of pink. Were told not to be a sissy and to man up, don't be a girl about it,etc. Then they were expected to be attracted to the opposite sex, whether they were or not. One way or the other, they rejected some or all of these things in retrospect. They believe that these norms and rules set for boys lead to some level of confusion that prevented them from becoming the person they are sooner in life. They identified moreso with personality traits and interests more closely associated with girls. All of the same applies to girls except in reverse.
The solution in all of this, imo, isn't to deny that these kids are boys or girls but rather to expose them to every color, hobby, animal, etc and see what they like. If 9/10 times they like something that 9/10 girls like and don't like something 9/10 boys like and exhibit commonly female behaviors and this trend continues for a long period of time...they're a boy who identifies with girls. They're not a person who identifies with girls.
What I'm saying is that you don't have to ignore gender norms and make the sex/gender division one more thing that's against the rules for teachers to foist on your kids to have well-asjusted kids. Again, while you're acknowledging these differences, kick the kids that make fun of the girly boy out of class and tell their parents they're not welcome at the school if they're going to bully and make a perfectly happy and well-behaved kid feel bad about himself. And teach the girly boy that his interests are great though different than his classmates and that he should continue to pursue those interests. To me, that's how well-adjusted people are raised. Denial or evasion is never a good thing in my eyes. And I see this mentality as both.
I guess myself and others have just failed to properly voice what the movement is about, which is really celebrating diversity that hadn't previously been recognized but had always existed.
You've voiced it well. We have the same endpoint: well adjusted contributors to a positive world. We believe in different ways of reaching it.
**Just to prove this point, i am referring to these quotes:
"Biblical concepts?" Just about every society that has ever existed in recorded history, across cultures, languages, and religions, right up through the present, has used those same concepts. Worked just fine, too."
"The problem is that you can't change societal definitions just for some people without changing them for all."
"Fine. But that doesn't mean the rest of us must change our definitions -- it is his responsibility to understand and deal with the fact that the rest of society draws lines in a different place than he does."
"Consider the rest of us "wrong" if you choose, but the minority doesn't get to set the rules"
"Individuals have the right to be different, and to have different beliefs. But it remains their individual burden to deal with the reality that they are different. It is not up to the rest of us to change our society and definitions just so that they don't feel different."
All on this page, you don't even need to substitute words. If that's the side you choose either i've read you completely wrong or i really fucked up my argument (more likely).
Anything he says that comes across as discrimination or treating anyone as lessee than, you can assume I disagree with. You can also assume that my beliefs don't come from a religion or a political party.
If you get the impression any of his or anyone else's beliefs fit this those categories, assume I don't align.