The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[NotThePrez]

The law creates a civil cause of action, basically telling people that they can sue a school district if they don't like something and they may be awarded a judgment per the law. And that's very deliberate.

This is Republicans' new favorite arrow in their quiver since first nocking it with Texas' implementation of SB8 (the six-week abartion ban). The reason they like it so much is that it actually forestalls constitutional challenge. There is no direct state action. The only state action is adjudication itself.

So basically, the GoP is getting regular civilians to do their dirty work for them, because it doesn't exactly count as a violation of the constitution if the action is from a civil case?

If that is indeed the case, then more points in the "pure evil" category.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

...especially considering how tumultuous those years can be for a kid.

Wow you must have had it rough in the 3rd grade.

...to help them power through an extremely confusing and overwhelming time in their lives

Maybe they wouldn't be so confused if they weren't taught that the doctor just guessed what they were when they were born.

Prove it. Please prove how an article that closely discusses several bills that have actually been signed into law in various states in this country, and the repercussions of these bills that are blindingly obvious to anyone who has a shred of common sense, many of which are backed by reports from experts in these respective areas, is "propaganda."

The article says this: " The laws include Florida’s novel restrictions banning classroom discussions of gender and sexuality, which have become a template for other states seeking to limit what students learn about these issues and when."
No mention of the children's ages. I'm not sure how many hundreds of words this article is, but if the author wanted to be fair he could have add two more "under eight". Oh wait, they do mention that, in the 29th paragraph.

The article says this: "...an Alabama law that echoes Florida’s “don’t say gay” law..."
Calling the Florida law, the "don't say gay" law is propaganda.

The bulk of the article is just a platform for activists.

There is no mention of any controversy about people with penises being in the girl's locker rooms or bathrooms, or competing against girls in competitions. And those things are controversial.

The Party of Science needs to remember biology is also a science.

 

[Scaff]

Wow you must have had it rough in the 3rd grade.

Ignore the suicide rates involved in this subject would be required to make such a crass comment.

Maybe they wouldn't be so confused if they weren't taught that the doctor just guessed what they were when they were born.

Ah, reverting to ******** now.

The article says this: " The laws include Florida’s novel restrictions banning classroom discussions of gender and sexuality, which have become a template for other states seeking to limit what students learn about these issues and when."
No mention of the children's ages. I'm not sure how many hundreds of words this article is, but if the author wanted to be fair he could have add two more "under eight". Oh wait, they do mention that, in the 29th paragraph.

So it does say it and you just engaged in bad faith.

The article says this: "...an Alabama law that echoes Florida’s “don’t say gay” law..."
Calling the Florida law, the "don't say gay" law is propaganda.

Nope

The bulk of the article is just a platform for activists.

Also nope

There is no mention of any controversy about people with penises being in the girl's locker rooms or bathrooms, or competing against girls in competitions. And those things are controversial.

And yet neither need to be any such thing, unless you channeling the oft touted, but inaccurate bathroom scare stories.

Which is disturbingly ironic, as it wasnt that long ago that the same people said the same thibg about gay men in bathrooms.

The Party of Science needs to remember biology is also a science.

You need to learn the difference between biological sex and gender before you fail at science.

Or are you attempting to suggest that this is a choice that goes against biology, because that sounds ohbso familiar.

 

[Famine]

Which is disturbingly ironic, as it wasnt that long ago that the same people said the same thibg about gay men in bathrooms.

And it wasn't that long ago that people said being gay was against nature because there's no gay animals.


In fact that was so recent that it was the comment that literally started this thread off, and it's been repeated again and again throughout the thread's history.

 

[Danoff]

Here is the part of the Florida bill that has the activists panties in a wad.

97 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third
98 parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur
99 in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age
100 appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in
101 accordance with state standards.

Here is the whole bill.

Tell me what is abhorrent, unconstitutional, and against gay people in this bill.

and neither the state nor the district had offered formal guidance on what that new law would actually mean for their classrooms — a problem, since summer school is already in session. So the administrators derailed the lesson plan and unloaded a spade of hypotheticals: Could staff wear the rainbow articles of clothing — like the “Ally” lanyards the district had handed out? What about the “Safe Space” stickers teachers put on their classroom doors? Can teachers display photos of a same-sex partner and, if so, can they tell students who that person is?

When the seminar concluded, the district’s teachers learned that the answer to all of those questions had been an emphatic “no,” according to representatives from the local teacher’s union. The district’s general counsel pushed back against teachers’ alarm in an email, and cautioned elementary school teachers against displaying or wearing anything “that may elicit discussions” that may violate the law.

“Oh, so only K-3 teachers need to go back into the closet, I guess, not the rest,” says Clinton McCracken, a former art teacher who just took the helm of the district’s union.

^^ That right there. The bill can be used to fire or prosecute teachers for even accidentally "outing" themselves at school. What constitutes instruction in a manner that is not age appropriate? It's a green light for abuse by the worst parents in the district.

Keep in mind that our supreme court just said that it's a teacher's first amendment right to lead children in religious prayer of the teacher's personal religious denomination at school.

 

[TexRex]

Calling the Florida law, the "don't say gay" law is propaganda.

By this...logic (it isn't actually that, but I can't think of a more appropriate word)...the law's actual name is also "propaganda."

The law is referred to officially as "Parental Rights in Education" but this is misleading (certainly even deliberately so) because there is no actual right, retained by parents or children, to not be exposed to ideas of which one disapproves. The law weighs the wants and wills of some ("wants and wills" reflects that there are no legitimate rights to speak of here, and "of some" that it's unlikely to be all interested and affected parties, re: parents) against the actual real expressive rights ("actual" and "real" reflects that they are actual and real, and "expressive rights" that there are rights covering expression, of which speech is one example) of others. This is no less misleading than "Don't Say Gay," indeed it's more misleading because the law actually does establish a civil cause of action against a school or district employing an educator or other party who may indeed "say gay."

And still no legitimate harm has been defined.

 

[NotThePrez]

Wow you must have had it rough in the 3rd grade.

I'm going to assume that you're not aware that suicide rates among children is actually a pretty major problem currently, because only someone who doesn't understand this (or someone who completely lacks empathy) would make such a terrible comment.

Maybe they wouldn't be so confused if they weren't taught that the doctor just guessed what they were when they were born.

That's...not at all what happens.

The article says this: " The laws include Florida’s novel restrictions banning classroom discussions of gender and sexuality, which have become a template for other states seeking to limit what students learn about these issues and when."
No mention of the children's ages.

I'm not sure how many hundreds of words this article is, but if the author wanted to be fair he could have add two more "under eight". Oh wait, they do mention that, in the 29th paragraph.

The omission (or in this case, delayed notice) of this aspect does not make the previous statement incorrect, nor does it dismiss the concerns I raised earlier, those being:

The fact that discussing these topics in a classroom in any capacity is a criminal offense grounds for a civil case against the school and teachers, basically making it a crime to teach kids about the other people that they will inevitably interact with at some point in their lives, is abhorrent. That portion of life is a major developmental stage for kids, as that's when the foundation of their personality and understanding (as well as how they respond to things they may not be familiar with) really starts to significantly take shape.

It's also abhorrent because it screws over students who are LGBTQ (as well as any LGBTQ teachers, general faculty and third-parties), because now they can't go to their teachers or administrators at their school to seek help, advice or, well, education about themselves, because there will be a very real fear on the teacher's and/or schools end of facing criminal charges if they try to help their student, especially considering how tumultuous those years can be for a kid.

Lastly, the obviously purposeful vagueness of the writing in this law, which I took the liberty of underlining, is also a major problem.

• Who/what determines what is and isn't age appropriate?
• Who/what determines what is "developmentally appropriate," whatever the hell that means?
• What are the "state standards," and who/what determines what is and isn't kosher to talk about in the classroom, and what is the threshold between disciplinary action and/or criminal action against the instructor?

How about actually addressing some of these points rather than trying to move the spotlight...again.

The article says this: "...an Alabama law that echoes Florida’s “don’t say gay” law..."

Calling the Florida law, the "don't say gay" law is propaganda.

Nope...

The bulk of the article is just a platform for activists.

...aaand nope. The article is detailing actual laws that exist and are in effect in at least 20% of this country, and the symptoms of said laws being obvious to anyone who doesn't deny reality as hard as you do.

There is no mention of any controversy about people with penises being in the girl's locker rooms or bathrooms, or competing against girls in competitions. And those things are controversial.

They really shouldn't be, and they can stop being controversies with actual education, preferably in classrooms, about the topic (which, again, 20% of the country either have banned in some capacity or are attempting to) and if [Republican] politicians stopped being hell-bent on controlling what people do privately. The latter in of itself has major creep vibes on its own.

The Party of Science needs to remember biology is also a science.

Biological sex =/= gender.

Edit: Proofreading is hard.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Ignore the suicide rates involved in this subject would be required to make such a crass comment.

How many third graders (8 year olds) are killing themselves? Third grade is not a some tumultuous time as @NotThePrez implies.

Ah, reverting to ******** now.

I do not know what this means. I have tried but I can not guess a dirty word that long.

So it does say it and you just engaged in bad faith.

Yeah, I acknowledged it in the third sentence, they waited until the 29th paragraph.

I'm going to assume that you're not aware that suicide rates among children is actually a pretty major problem currently, because only someone who doesn't understand this (or someone who completely lacks empathy) would make such a terrible comment.

Among third graders though? The article you reference is about adolescence.

They really shouldn't be, and they can stop being controversies with actual education, preferably in classrooms, about the topic (which, again, 20% of the country either have banned in some capacity or are attempting to) and if [Republican] politicians stopped being hell-bent on controlling what people do privately. The latter in of itself has major creep vibes on its own.

Ok look. I was never the father of a 14 year old girl, and I never will be. BUT if I was, I sure wouldn't want her to be subjected to a person walking around the locker room with their dick hanging out. Dicks do not belong in girls locker rooms or bathrooms or showers.

 

[TexRex]

Gosh. Still no attempt to define legitimate harm that the law purports to prevent or remedy. I'm shocked. It's...it's as if there is none, one understands that there is none and one [reasonably--thus far the only reason one has demonstrated] figures any attempt to define legitimate harm when there is none will weaken one's already flimsy position.

 

[Scaff]

How many third graders (8 year olds) are killing themselves? Third grade is not a some tumultuous time as @NotThePrez implies.

So you believe that phycological damage that can lead to suicide begins spontaneously once you become a teenager (or insert your arbitrary age here), and is in no way related to life experiences at a younger age?

I mean you can believe that if you wish, it's utterly and completely wrong on every level, but you can believe it.

I do not know what this means. I have tried but I can not guess a dirty word that long.

Come on, try harder.

Yeah, I acknowledged it in the third sentence, they waited until the 29th paragraph.

Not the point, and I think you're smart enough to know it as well.

Among third graders though? The article you reference is about adolescence.

See above, based on an inaccurate premise (and I've checked this with both my wife and our eldest daughter - both of who have degrees in Early Years & Childhood Development).

Ok look. I was never the father of a 14 year old girl, and I never will be. BUT if I was, I sure wouldn't want her to be subjected to a person walking around the locker room with their dick hanging out. Dicks do not belong in girls locker rooms or bathrooms or showers.

I am the father of three girls, and what you are describing doesn't happen, you're pedaling a right-wing myth that requires an utter lack of critical thinking that it's almost absurd. If you actually think that a trans girl, is going to walk around a locker room showing off their dick, you are to be blunt, an idiot! The area of their body they are most likely the most confused/embarrassed/ashamed of is not something that they are going to have 'hanging out'.

The willful ignorance you are displaying is based on transphobic myths, and is to be blunt only a (very small) step away from homophobic myths, and if you think that the majority who preach the former don't also believe the latter your very, very, very wrong.

 

[TexRex]

Not the point, and I think you're smart enough to know it as well.

 

[McLaren]

The bathroom argument might be Top 10 for dumbest talking points in the Conservative circle, esp. with the argument made mostly by men.

In my 30+ years as a fellow dude, I have never seen another man's dick in a restroom, maybe 1-2 in a high school locker room by guys changing quickly to cover back up, and similarly in a gym locker room. So, why on earth would that change for a transgender person who would more than likely make an even bigger attempt to cover themselves to avoid running into someone's bigotry and be harassed?

I assume it's even easier for women given women's restrooms tend to be nothing but stalls, so there's no chance of anyone even catching a peep...

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This is an interview with the founder of Gays Against Groomers. This group was only started about a month ago, but already has tens of thousands of followers. She founded this organization to push back against the activists that have hijacked the LGB community.

 

[TexRex]

She founded this organization to push back against the activists that have hijacked the LGB community.

Which is to say--or rather to explicitly not say--the "T."

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[McLaren]

No, she founded it for a bunch of conservative gay people like yourself to push right-wing propaganda. 1 look at their social media is full of it. Parler? TruthSocial? Yeah, have fun being accepted there.

Look at this trash. Of course conservatives suck this **** down like a fat kid in a candy shop.




I can not fathom how anyone actually support this nonsense. "This flag represents ALL of us". Yeah, til' a Supreme Court Judge decides the flag needs another look at pushing gays back into the closet because being with the same-sex scares white boomer conservatives & their Bibles. There's a 4-letter word I think sums up anyone who stands behind this, though I'm pretty sure it's against (or heavily toes the line) the AUP to use.

But, what an embarrassment to actually support this. The weird irony in claiming this was setup to push back against hijackers whilst it's clearly attempting to hijack LGBTQ+ for itself. It's anti-trans gay person behind this, or better described as, "I got mine and I'm kicking the ladder behind me".

 

[UKMikey]

I guess astroturfing comes in all sexual orientations as well.

 

[Joey D]

Imagine if conservatives used their time to do something productive instead of trying to villainize a relatively small group of people. Like just think if they put half the effort into fixing the US economy or the looming climate disaster. But nope, they want to ignore serious problems while they invent asinine BS to go after. I mean, I get it, asinine BS is profitable but holy hell are those that buy into it a special kind of stupid.

 

[TexRex]

Imagine if conservatives used their time to do something productive instead of trying to villainize a relatively small group of people. Like just think if they put half the effort into fixing the US economy or the looming climate disaster. But nope, they want to ignore serious problems while they invent asinine BS to go after. I mean, I get it, asinine BS is profitable but holy hell are those that buy into it a special kind of stupid.

Moral panic and culture war grievance is essential to conservatism. It's an ideology devoid of reason.

Edit: What's the gay form of a TERF? Has it been established? It's obviously a thing. Serious question, necessarily avoiding the obvious because it's wildly inappropriate (I hope and genuinely don't think this needs to be made clear here), isn't inclusive of homosexual females and the acronym is indistinguishable from the original.

 

[Joey D]

Moral panic and culture war grievance is essential to conservatism. It's an ideology devoid of reason.

Edit: What's the gay form of a TERF? Has it been established? It's obviously a thing. Serious question, necessarily avoiding the obvious because it's wildly inappropriate (I hope and genuinely don't think this needs to be made clear here), isn't inclusive of homosexual females and the acronym is indistinguishable from the original.

According to Urban Dictionary, it's TEHM (Trans-Exclusionary Homosexual Male) and originated on Tumblr.

 

[TexRex]

According to Urban Dictionary, it's TEHM (Trans-Exclusionary Homosexual Male) and originated on Tumblr.

Still not inclusive of homosexual females, but it's something.

TEHP? TEHI? Just TEH?

 

[Daniel]

Still not inclusive of homosexual females, but it's something.

TEHP? TEHI? Just TEH?

Queens Unfortunately Excluding Evidence Regarding Stonewall.

 

[TexRex]

Queens Unfortunately Excluding Evidence Regarding Stonewall.

I fear it doesn't accurately describe the demographic to which I'm referring, but it's fantastic fabulous just the same.

 

[Daniel]

How's this one?

Trans-Opposers Ignore Logic: Enough Talking!

 

[HenrySwanson]

The bathroom argument might be Top 10 for dumbest talking points in the Conservative circle, esp. with the argument made mostly by men.

In my 30+ years as a fellow dude, I have never seen another man's dick in a restroom, maybe 1-2 in a high school locker room by guys changing quickly to cover back up, and similarly in a gym locker room. So, why on earth would that change for a transgender person who would more than likely make an even bigger attempt to cover themselves to avoid running into someone's bigotry and be harassed?

I assume it's even easier for women given omen's restrooms tend to be nothing but stalls, so there's no chance of anyone even catching a peep...

The only thing I've found is from an anonymous source saying some teammates of Lia Thomas were uncomfortable with her changing in the locker room. From the limited research I've seen it's more that trans people are more reticent to use changing rooms in the first place, and are prone to suffer mental distress when doing so.

As for possible predatory behaviour in single sex spaces, recent research into Scottish prisons suggests that it may be cis-men abusing gender recognition laws rather than actual trans females who are the risk (at least, in the prison environment).

 

[UKMikey]

How's this one?

Trans-Opposers Ignore Logic: Enough Talking!

Gender Assignment Yields Little Of Relevant Discussion?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

 

[Joey D]

Maybe, just maybe, kids in California feel more comfortable than kids in Ohio expressing if they're transgender. I'm sure there are sociological and anthropological studies that look at this.

Also, it's really strange that you would accept something presented by Bill Maher, a known liberal, or as you put it "a commie".

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Also, it's really strange that you would accept something presented by Bill Maher, a known liberal, or as you put it "a commie".

I have always watched Bill Maher, starting with Politically Incorrect. Back then he identified as a libertarian.

 

[Daniel]

Multiple possible explanations without simply assuming California is some ultrawoke hellscape forcing the "transing" of kids.

1. It's not a stretch to suggest that California is a more accepting state for queer identities based on historical data compared to Ohio (e.g. support for gay marriage, historical legislation etc.)

2. California has a younger median age compared to Ohio. We already know that younger generations are more open to identifying as queer so again, it's not a stretch to assume that California will be more "queer".

I think it would be worth investigating the Gallop polling (I presume the data will be from this survey) to break it down by state but I haven't been able to find the survey data to that detail.

Anyone here have access through their university or college to the data?

 

[TexRex]

Also, it's really strange that you would accept something presented by Bill Maher, a known liberal, or as you put it "a commie".

Except liberals (both the "leftists" and the consent-of-the-governed type) frequently think Maher is a piece of ****--as do countless non-liberals--and have done for quite some time, resulting in a distinct shift in rhetoric to that which resembles, to significant degree, right trash culture war grievance and definitely isn't because he just wants an audience that will disregard his priors so long as he adopts their narratives in the here and now.