School Told to Call Kids ‘Purple Penguins’ Because ‘Boys and Girls’ Is Not Inclusive

[The Human Q-Tip]

Ok, please correct me if i am misframing any of your (or Jigo's) positions here:

I think we are fundamentally opposed on what role we view society in. It seems that you place more (but not all) of the burden on individuals to adapt to their society's social structure, while i place more (but not all) of the burden on society to adapt to its individuals as such.

I really hesitate in agreeing to really broad statements like that because there may be applications where I don't believe it would apply. So let me qualify that by saying that I'm not arguing for mass conformity in every aspect of life, because there are many ways in which people may be different that don't require that society choose one or the other. And I don't believe in legal compulsion to conform in private life. But if we are talking about an aspect of society where a choice must be made one way or the other, then I think the majority, not the minority, should set the standard.

In this case, I think that sex/gender based distinctions are a very useful thing for society to have. Virtually mandatory in some cases. And so, we need to determine as a society where to draw that distinction in public life. And I think the majority, not the minority, has the right to draw that line. I'd also point out that I'm only talking about the need for line-drawing in public life. People should be free to draw whatever lines they'd like among friends and like-minded people. So while I don't think the schools should teach that moon is made out of green cheese, I don't believe some New Age cult that thinks it is should be suppressed. Of course, I also don't believe the schools should avoid teaching what the moon is really made out of so as not to hurt the feelings of children raised in the Moon Cheese cult. In that case, the beliefs of the minority should not dictate what is taught.

Adapting a society to a minority always comes with costs. You have been arguing this and while i agree i hadn't really acknowledged this basic idea, so i wanted to.

I think this is the core point on which we differ, because what you are referring to as the majority "adapting" to the minority, I see as actually giving the minority view primacy over the majority. I'll try an analogy to religion, and maybe that'll help.

We have adapted to the Amish in our state by adjusting some traffic, tax, and other laws to accommodate their religion. They can live the way they wish, generally. Still, the fact that the modern world doesn't live the same way does make it more difficult for them in a lot of ways. But the majority shouldn't have to change things that are important to them just so that the Amish get everything they'd want. And I think it's certainly fair to say that they have adapted to us even more than we have adapted to them.

On the flip side, look at the outcry among some Muslims regarding the depiction of Mohammed. To Muslims, physical depictions of Muhammed are offensive, and there have been death threats (from radicals, not all Muslims) against artists, etc. who violate that. The argument from some is that we should have to adapt our free speech laws in consideration of their moral beliefs. A minority demanding that a majority adapt to them instead of the other way around. To me, that's unreasonable.

On the benefit side, I seem to see more positive value in having a society accept a group by changing its traditions, while you seem to think that changing traditions is not necessary for accepting a group, merely education.

We kind of break down here as well because I don't see this as "acceptance of a group" at all, nor do I see "traditions" as being relevant. Nobody is saying that people who believe that gender distinctions should be based on internal preference rather than external biology/chromosomal factors should be excluded from society. We are simply saying that their definition/preference should not trump ours. It's the "don't draw Muhammed" issue. And I'm really struggling with the logic of why the privacy and other legitimate concerns of the majority should be subordinate to the hurt feelings of the minority. Why is the privacy (and security) interest of a woman who does not want to share a restroom or shower with biological males less important than the desire of the biological male to enter the women's restroom?

Frankly, I think there's a very strong argument that the woman's interests in that scenario are logically much stronger and more legitimate than are the male's.

This is why I see a real benefit to what teachers like Keys are doing with their terminology, and perhaps why you don't (if my speculations are right).

Well, I don't because I see that the two sides of the terminology issue as being fundamentally irreconciliable. If you tell one child that "you're a girl if you think you are", you're simultaneously telling (explicitly or implicitly) all the others that "the only thing that makes you a boy or girl is that you think you are." Which means you're telling them that what their parents told them (boys have a penis, girls have a vagina) is wrong.

I also view sports teams, bathrooms etc. as easily solved, mostly because i went to a college that basically dealt with and solved all of this with gendered and gender neutral bathrooms and the like, and it worked quite well once you got over the day-1 weirdness of it all.

I think the difficulties are greater than you do. The ability to put unisex bathrooms in a college is the tiniest tip of a huge iceberg.

The most important thing (in my opinion) is that people recognize that these people exist and are real, and you have done that. How you will refer to them is up to you.

First, I appreciate your civil tone. In my social circle, there is one trans person whom I refer to by his preferred gender when we meet. No point in being rude, but I do not actually consider him to be a woman. Feels like I'm mouthing scripted words in some play, and definitely feels like I'm just humoring someone with mental issues. But assuming those issues, it's just more sad than anything else, so I go along with it.

They will continue to push the redefinition of gender though, so i feel you may have to unwillingly adapt to the new language of the upcoming generations.

Two points. First, one issue I have with this is the subjective component. I do not doubt that there are people born whose brains have characteristics more often found in the brains of people of the opposite biological sex. But yet, all of those people do not actually consider themselves to be persons of the opposite gender. You've also argued that this aspect of gender is "hidden" because it is in the brain, but even if it wasn't hidden, I don't think you are advocating that we come to some objective standard as to what it takes to see in a brain before we declare a person to be male or female.

So ultimately, we're being asked to leave the determination as to whether or not someone should be considered male/female, boy/girl, etc., to a completely subjective, self-declaration of an individual, and that's true regardless of what their brain shows. I just don't think a completely subjective definition is workable/usable in society at large.

Second, I think you've overlooked a point both Jigo and I have raised about going at social acceptance part this issue from the end of redefining "gender roles" rather than redefining actual gender/sex. As I mentioned earlier, wearing dresses, lipstick, hair, etc., are not biologically determined in the brain or elsewhere. They are pure social constructs, so the question is why trans people desire to do that. Biologically, wearing a dress doesn't make you any more or less female. It's a piece of cloth.

The only logical answer I can come up with is that they associate those purely cultural distinctions with people whose biologically-based behaviors they wish to emulate. "I feel more comfortable acting the way they act, therefore want to dress and wear makeup like they do." The question is whether or not the issue of outward appearances would matter at all if there was a more flexible view regarding sexual roles/behaviors.

Please let me know if I've mischaracterized your thoughts on any of this. Trying to wrap it up so i can fully grasp and learn from your argument, and end fighting what's become my little one man war here.

I don't think you deliberately misrepresented my position at all, and if there were any ambiguities, I cleaned them up.

 

[Sumac13]

If you called me a purple penguin when I was a kid, I would probably have come after you with fists.

Agreed.

This reminds me of a STNG episode were Worf protests: 'Sir, I protest, I am not a merry man!"

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Agreed.

This reminds me of a STNG episode were Worf protests: 'Sir, I protest, I am not a merry man!"

Worf was clearly not a "merry man."

Wesley, on the other hand....

 

[Pick6]

South Park gender identity episode on right now

 

[Tornicade]

Did someone say fruit?
Guys can wear lipstick
Gals can wear a tool belt with a hard hat.

What I am seeing is most of the people who think this gender attack on the dictionary is ridiculous because they dont hold gender stereotypes as dear as others.

Fruits are a great example. they have long been associated with gender stereotypes.. its all the same just peaches and bananas. animals as a reference would eventually evolve and associate with genders just as he or she does. its nothing new . we been calling kids animals for years.

I dont needer a gender neutral term to let my granddaughter play with trains or my nephew carry a purse if their so disposed to.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well, this is fun.

Students: Transgender Woman Can’t Be Diversity Officer Because She’s a White Man Now

A student who was born female felt perfectly comfortable identifying as a man at Wellesley College — until people said he shouldn’t be class diversity officer because he is now a white male.
Timothy Boatwright was born a girl, and checked off the “female” box when applying to the Massachusetts all-women’s school, according to an article in the New York Times. But when he got there, he introduced himself as a “masculine-of-center genderqueer” person named “Timothy” (the name he picked for himself) and asked them to use male pronouns when referring to him.
And, by all accounts, Boatwright felt welcome on campus — until the day he announced that he wanted to run for the school’s office of multicultural affairs coordinator, whose job is to promote a “culture of diversity” on campus....

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390425/students-transgender-woman-cant-be-diversity-officer-because-shes-white-man-now

Of course, Wellesley is a school for women only, those this story has lots of brain-distorting angles to it.

And I guess that "white male privilege" isn't all it's cracked up to be, eh?

 

[Jack Brickman]

And I guess that "white male privilege" isn't all it's cracked up to be, eh?

I think it's pretty awesome.

 

[The Oi]

Yep.

If you want to be a man, then you will need to honor all societal implications of being a man.

Can't have your dick and beat it too.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What gets me is that Wellesley is a pretty, uh, "progressive" place, so you'd assume that they'd respect "gender choice". In that case, once this woman self-identified as a man, that should mean that "he" should no longer be welcome at a women-only school.

Unless they believe that the self-identification as a man doesn't change the fact that she's still really a woman, and therefore entitled to be at the school.

 

[Soda]

My son (Second grade) goes to a school that sees the world this way. We think it's great, at seven he understands the difference between biological gender and gender identity. Something a fair number of posters here seem mystified by. Why should any child be singled out socially because old people are frozen in biblical concepts of family structure and gender identity? Maybe they should have their own water fountains? The bathrooms are unisex and they are asked to line up by favorite color, or odd numbered bday or even as opposed to relying on lazy formulas like boy and girl. Don't want to tip anyones canoe but this isn't rampant progressivism- it's a better quality educational product.

Boy, are you a judgmental person... You're imposing your idealistic view of the world upon other people AND condemning people who are religious. It's rampant progressiveness for you to discount other peoples' freedoms of belief in the interest of your opinion on a very low-brow and non-threatening topic. That has been the liberal MO for a while now. Ignore the important shit like our safety and fiscal outlook for social shit!

Bottom line is gender identity is in place not because it was an assignment, but rather because it was learned through generations of actions. If you want to see a change with regard to what has been learned throughout centuries, that's not a problem in my eyes. The problem in my eyes is that you're saying it's "wrong" when it was pretty much the reality many generations were siphoned into.. Men were stronger, so they did the manual stuff while women tended the home & children. Personally, I don't have a problem with that unless the ones playing the roles do. In today's reality, there's not many "careers" that aren't advanced in mechanical/technical capability to the point where a woman can't do what a man does and vice versa. Therefore, the standard gender roles aren't as significant and I think they can be broken by anyone who desires to. This is also something that can be learned in the home.

When I do have children, I'm not going to hide their gender or their gender "roles". I plan to give it to them at face value and then having a discussion about the whys and hows. I hope that my children will see both sides of these things, rather than saying, "we should change this because I want it to change." I don't think supporters of this movement are sympathetic at all to people who learned differently than them and who were in a different type of culture.

But go ahead Cali. You can have your politically correct identity. That's about as fake a facade as you can get, though.