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

[The Oi]

They don't take Iowa Basics in California, but I would say they don't bubble anything for sex questions.

Next time I have a pet emergency and have to call the vet, I'm going to refuse to answer what kind of pet I have and bring them an elephant.

How is it anyone's business what kind of organism they're dealing with?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The more I think about this the more ridiculous I think it is. It's usually the opposite for me.

It all boils down to this in my mind...we've got groups of people wanting to make us all the same so that a miniscule handful of kids can feel safe being different.

We can't just teach these kids to accept each other being different. We actually have to all raise the same fuckin kid!

Is it going to take a lot of time out of my day to acquiesce to these kids and their parents? No. Is it going to hurt my feelings if a 7 year old boy wants to call himself Mary? No.

But I'm just not one to live in a fantasy land.

Teach the kids to respect the kid that wants to be a girl because he's a human being. Don't make the kids refuse to acknowledge that he's different.

This just nails the point to me. Nobody is saying that these people can't consider themselves whatever gender, or no gender at all, if they want. 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.

So maybe someone who is physically a man wants to consider himself a woman. 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. So if our rules are that physical gender determines which bathroom you use, too fucking bad. Consider the rest of us "wrong" if you choose, but the minority doesn't get to set the rules on the use of public restrooms. And if walking in the restroom with a different label than you'd prefer bothers you, that's your responsibility to deal mentally/emotionally with that.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's become a circle jerk of strawmen in here.

On the day of his conviction, that traitorous prick Bradley Manning announced that he now considered himself a woman going forward, wanted to be called "Chelsea", and be placed in a prison for women. LBGT groups argued that not only should he get his wish on all counts, but he should have had his hormone treatments and possible gender reassignment paid for by taxpayers.

That was a real-life situation, not a strawman.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I wasn't smart enough to wipe my ass completely at the age of 6 let alone choose which personal pronoun I identified most with.

Well, it's nice to see some things haven't changed.

Heh.

 

[theSwayze]

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.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I was a social worker before I entered the classroom, so I too have studied the DSM in two forms: IV and IV-TR. I was surprised that someone well read on this subject was still lacking in an understanding in the differences between "sex" and "gender." Again, the distinctions were made in the early 50's.

The phrase generally used was "gender roles", not the singular term "gender". "Gender" and "sex" were often used interchangeably throughout the DSM's.

[/quote]There is no evidence that a political lobby, LGBT, that began in the early 1970s coordinated the original scientific studies of gender issues.[/quote]

Agreed, but that wasn't my point. I was talking about how the LGBT lobby has worked to alter definitions. I linked the article discussing the changes to DSM V that openly admits the drafters changed the language because of pressure from "advocates". I mean, I don't think that's open to dispute. The DSM's views of homosexuality has changed as well. Not because of anything new being discovered, but simply because of external pressures/considerations. Obviously, that a different issue from studies into gender issues, which as you point out, have been going on for a long time.

One other aspect of the DSM's that's probably relevant to this discussion is that their intended purpose is to assist in diagnosis and treatment. If the editors/drafters determine that changing definitions or word usage will have a positive effect upon patients who don't like the language used, they'll change it, because it's not a really a forensic book that just seeks truth/accuracy for its own sake.

Your legal background I'm sure hates this Pandora's Box of perfectly healthy kids getting screwed up by a parent's whims.

Nah, the part where the legal background comes in is in terms of definitions, which are critical when interpreting statutes and regulations. There have been a lot of efforts to change laws not through the legislative process, but by trying to change the meaning of the words from what was understood when they were passed. If we permit that, then you've basically subverted a core part of representative government because laws will be changed without going through that process.

1. What are the limits and boundaries of my influence on another parent? If there is evidence that failing to assign gender to your kid is abusive and damaging, we as a society can tell these parents to stop or Child Protective Services will be involved. But, that data doesn't exist yet. So basically, whatever opinions we have of someone else's parenting aren't worth a crap. I think parents who don't let their kid eat a hot dog because of nitrates are dumbasses. I can't stop them from doing it though.

I think most of us agree that parents are permitted to make such choices, misguided or not.

2. Since there clearly ARE kids with this gender identity issue, I can't randomly pick who gets the educational environment they need and who will have their parent's desires undermined. I'm especially not doing it in a school where many staff members are on the range of GLBT or gender issues themselves... and that exists in Midwestern schools as well. Plenty of private, conservative Catholic schools in Cleveland have GLBT staff... that isn't just a San Francisco liberal thing.

The problem is that you can't change societal definitions just for some people without changing them for all. I mean, the whole issue that started this thread wasn't a debate on whether or not a kid can say they're neither a boy nor a girl. It is whether other kids and adults may continue to use the boy/girl distinction. And when you make the choice to no longer use that distinction, you're actually imposing that minority view on everyone else, and undermining the view of all those parents and kids.

You're sort of fucked as a teacher if you're in an environment with a bunch of colleagues who will throw a hissy fit if their views on gender are not controlling. Because a lot of Administrations are too chickenshit to tell the minority that they can't dictate their views on gender to the majority. But, that's not the case everywhere, and there are some parents and schools that exercise their right to resist that.

 

[Maximus]

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.

They should try that at the Browns game tomorrow...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

"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.

What happens when you start having sports teams when sexual differences caused due to puberty increase? What about privacy interests children/teens/adults may have in terms of locker rooms, roommate matching on college, or any of a hundred other iterations of when biological gender really matters? What about valid concerns parents may have with mixed gender groups of teens or kids, chaperoning, etc.?

Either we have commonly accepted, immutable definitions that describe gender, or we don't. Either we have the same understanding of what is meant when we say "he, she, boy, girl, male, female", or those words become useless, and people become unable to draw distinctions that they have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to draw.

 

[supergoat52]

The most surprising thing to me is that Jigo agrees with the arguments on this page. Honestly wouldn't have called that.

 

[The Oi]

. Don't want to tip anyones canoe but this isn't rampant progressivism- it's a better quality educational product.

It's rampant progressivism that YOU think is creating a better educational service. It's ok to admit it's progressivism.

Denying this is rampant progressivism is like...pretending that boys and girls aren't inherently different.

Lining up by favorite color? Why? How arbitrary. Why even differentiate in any way at all? Just make all the kids the same thing, so we're all equal and nobody's allowed to feel different.

I mean that'll certainly pan out well once they have to play boys and girls sports two years from now.

 

[The Oi]

The most surprising thing to me is that Jigo agrees with the arguments on this page. Honestly wouldn't have called that.

Why's that?

 

[supergoat52]

Why's that?

Because you seem to approach things like this with an open mind and have generally progressive viewpoints. 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.***

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. 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.

I'll learn from it because it points out a lack of persuasion in my arguments. I'll do you better next time i promise.


***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).

 

[Ohdang]

God damn it now I'm getting banner ads for local trannies...

That probably has more to do with custom ads based on your cookies...

 

[The Oi]

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.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

My opinion is that schools shouldn't be pretending genders don't exist....

I'd just like to add that if we're going to be consistent, then we can't be talking just about schools, because those schoolchildren are also living in a world outside that school. So to avoid making those children feel different from the norm (even though they actually are), we have to eliminate gender references everywhere, for everyone, in every context. Just consider the full implications of the wiping out the words "male/female, man/woman, he/she, boy/girl" from the language, and actually eliminating the entire concept of sex/gender as well, because that's what's actually being advanced. I'm just floored that opposition to that is characterized as being closed-minded, or the product of inexperience or lack of education.

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 someone is going to claim that my opinions are based in religion, they're cracked. I only mentioned religion in the generic sense, along with culture, race, language, etc., to demonstrate that the male/female distinctions has existed everywhere and throughout history regardless of factors such as religion.

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.

Another freaking dead-on point. As I see it, the tension between these different POV's is based on one group believing that society at large needs to change to maximize the ability to every individual to be well-adjusted. And while that sounds wonderful in the abstract, it is also what leads to the "everybody is a winner" mindset of trying to cater to everyone's personal ego. Some people are more physically attractive than others, more intelligent, better in terms of physical ability/health, more socially adept, etc.. And the people who are not any one of those things may well have adjustment/happiness issues because of it.

By this logic, then, we should eliminate all of those distinctions that might adversely affect someone's ego or feelings. Let's just pretend nobody is more attractive than anyone else, or a better athlete, or more intelligent. We're all just equal in every respect, and that way, nobody's feelings get hurt.

I personally reject that whole concept. I am not endorsing affirmative efforts to make others feely badly or uncomfortable simply because they are different or vary from the norm. But at the same time, I do not believe we should close our ours to real differences between people simply because the existence of those differences makes some people less happy/well-adjusted than they might otherwise be.