#LGBTQ+ Is BS or no?

1 messages · Page 2 of 1

radiant trout
#

End of discussion

#

A gender role refers to the behaviors, attitudes, responsibilities, and expectations that a society or culture considers appropriate for individuals based on their perceived or assigned gender. These roles can encompass a wide range of aspects, including how people should dress, act, speak, and pursue their personal and professional lives.

wintry zodiac
#

😂 how?

radiant trout
#

Because you believe that people can feel differnt in their behaviour and observe themselves differently from the traditional sex-based gender identity that they recieve on birth

#

Hence, more than 2 genders exist

#

If I can feel both masculine and feminine, than that is a valid gender

wintry zodiac
#

thats not how it works

radiant trout
#

But thats where you make a logical error

#

Because gender is nothing more or less than how someone sees themselves in relation with the gender role that is assigned to you by sex

#

So if you acknowledge that i can be a man with a penis that sees himself as being more feminine than masculine

#

that that automatically means that he can identify as something other than male

#

As what society expects of being male is different from how that person sees themselves

#

And gender is nothing more than the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.

#

if you agree that not all boys ONLY have masculine characteristics and not all girls ONLY have feminine characteristics

#

That means by definition you bleieve more than 2 genders exist

#

And as you have already agreed that that is the case

#

you do already believe in more than 2 genders

#

you are just too stubborn to admit

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout But thats where you make a logical error

Believing that someone can like both feminine and masculine things does not inherently mean there are more than two genders because interests and behaviors are separate from gender identity, a person can enjoy activities traditionally associated with both genders while still identifying strictly as male or female. This belief challenges societal norms about gender roles but does not imply the existence of additional genders. It simply acknowledges that interests and traits are diverse and not confined to one's gender identity.

That is where YOU make a logical error because if I still identify as a man and like to do feminine things then that doesnt mean im another gender, or can Identify as another gender. 😂

radiant trout
#

I never claimed that if you like masculine things as a woman you therefore have to identify as something other than a woman..??

#

you are making things up

wintry zodiac
#

However that doesnt mean that there are more than 2 genders

#

Drinking tea and having a tea party is feminine but doesnt mean that men can enjoy it too and it doesnt make them any more feminine

radiant trout
#

Well, if someone identifies as being feminine even though they are born with a penis, that does naturally result in more than two genders

#

And for that to happen, the only thing that must be true is that men can like feminine stuff

#

Which we both agree on

#

That does not mean that ALL men that like feminine stuff ALL feel like they belong to a gender other than male

#

but it does mean that SOME of them do

#

and as a matter of fact, if only one person does, that already makes the claim that only 2 genders exist logically inapliccable

#

or you argue that their existence is not real

#

but i guess we can easily determine that

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Well, if someone identifies as being feminine even though they are born with a p...

If someone identifies as feminine but is born as a man, it does not mean there are more than two genders. This situation shows that gender expression (how someone presents themselves) is separate from gender identity (how someone identifies). A man can express femininity without changing the fact that he identifies as male, thus fitting within the traditional binary framework of male and female.

#

It simply shows that gender expression can vary within the traditional binary framework of male and female. Diversity in how individuals express themselves does not inherently expand the number of genders beyond the established binary categories.

#

Hence why my statement that there is 2 genders and only 2 genders is true because it is viewed from my perspective, this topic is dependened on the side that you view it on. The traditional view says there are only two genders: male and female, based on biological sex. However, contemporary understanding (lgbtq+) recognizes that gender is more diverse. Some people identify as non-binary, genderqueer, or other identities outside the male-female binary. This diversity reflects individual experiences and identities that go beyond biological traits. Therefore, while some adhere to the binary view, others acknowledge a spectrum of gender identities, challenging the idea that there are only two genders. So you cannot say that the statement "there is 2 genders" is false, you can say its false in your perspective but not as a fact. I cannot say that there is more than 2 genders because it is not a fact but rather a perspective, and what I want to prove here is that you cannot force your beliefs of there being more than 2 genders at all times. You will have to accept this otherwise you in some way or another, restrict my freedom of speech and my opinions and values that I hold wont matter to you and not only mine, but millions to billions of others.

#

Anyway, im going to go now, I will respond to the other statements in a bit.

#

Oh and yeah, funny to see how much more disrespectful and rude you guys were compared to me, this is considering its a 1v9

#

Alr bye!

clever quest
# wintry zodiac Hence why my statement that there is 2 genders and only 2 genders is true becaus...

what I want to prove here is that you cannot force your beliefs of there being more than 2 genders at all times. You will have to accept this otherwise you in some way or another, restrict my freedom of speech and my opinions and values that I hold
Bottom line is...yes, we actually can enforce the belief that there are more than 2 genders. And we do, hence the problem you're having when you try and force other people to act as though there are only two.

#

It's got nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's about the requirement to treat other people with respect. That is enforced in our society.
That is who they are. Who they are isn't harmful to you. Our society accepts their view, and not yours. Therefore you need to get over it, or leave.

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac However that doesnt mean that there are more than 2 genders

This is so pointless unless you define what you mean by gender.

No one is denying that most people are born in a way that they can generally be classified into two distinct groups of male and female. We have different biological criteria that can be used. Anatomy, chromosomes, etc. But not everyone will fit perfectly into this. So while sex is bimodal there is no perfect set that can define all the things a male will have and all the things a female will have without exceptions.

Hermaphroditism is real, about 1 in 5,000 people are born with both male and female reproductive tissue and often decisions are made at birth about which way to go.

Given that this happens, that there is a mismatch such that people physically don't fit into the two boxes that fit most people, I don't know why you find it so hard to understand that people can also mentally not fit into those boxes sometimes.

And I wouldn't classify that as an illness, it's just the brain being wired slightly differently just as the body can be constructed slightly differently for some people.

These are facts. Now you can say that you don't care what people feel and they need to conform to the boxes you prefer, but thankfully that's not the way most societies are going.

wintry zodiac
# clever quest > what I want to prove here is that you cannot force your beliefs of there being...

Never forced anyone to act like theres 2 genders, or even believe that, I simply stated why I believe theres 2 genders and no you cant enforce the belief that there are more than 2 genders, that is something you are working against (the idea of forcing beliefs upon someone else). And if you think that forcing your beliefs is fine then I dont mind forcing my beliefs upon anyone thats part of LGBTQ+ right? I mean its fine forcing unless it opposes LGBTQ ideology 😂

wintry zodiac
# clever quest It's got nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's about the requirement to tre...

It has tons to do with freedom of speech, if you cant respect my opinion and my values and my ideas then you cannot expect yourself to be treaten with respect. Respect isnt entirely about using the ze/zir pronouns is it? Also LGBTQ is technically harmful to society as a whole because it lowers birth rates significantly and forces beliefs upon those who dont want it. If your society is your friends and accept your view then thats fine yall can do your own pronouns game and what not, but my society (many upon many people) and myself do not want to accept your view and want to embrace our view on things and theres nothing that justifies you trying to enforce your beliefs upon me and the people who support my ideology

#

Maybe you need to get over people mispronouncing your pronoun and get over the idea of having to remember 50 different pronouns 😂?

wintry zodiac
#

If you'd even bother reading what I said that is

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac Exactly, hence why I later said that it depends on your pov of this situation an...

It has nothing to do with personal values and beliefs. It's really just more about common courtesy.

If someone's legal name is Michael, but they prefer to go by Micky or Micah or Mike, I'll call them by that because in society we deem it rude not to if you know the preference.

You might personally feel that because their legal name is Michael you have to call them that, but the people around you may get justifiably pissed if you keep doing it after being informed.

That is not an infringement on your rights it is a consequence for bad manners.

wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice This is so pointless unless you define what you mean by gender. No one is denyi...

Given that this happens, that there is a mismatch such that people physically don't fit into the two boxes that fit most people, I don't know why you find it so hard to understand that people can also mentally not fit into those boxes sometimes.
While there are only 2 genders (we are talking about my POV here), these are simply biological anomalies and are very rare, therefore you either choose what you feel as most (assuming that you literally have neither sex organ or both) or whichever one is more predominent, also I heard that many of those who share similar beliefs advocate for medical interventions aimed at aligning an individual's physical characteristics with one of the binary genders, based on medical and ethical considerations. Recognizing intersex variations as evidence of more than two genders could challenge societal norms, legal frameworks, and cultural traditions that are built around a binary understanding of gender.

rigid pumice
wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice It has nothing to do with personal values and beliefs. It's really just more abo...

You might personally feel that because their legal name is Michael you have to call them that, but the people around you may get justifiably pissed if you keep doing it after being informed.
If you keep getting called by your legal name (Michael for example) then you can simply not be friends or not talk to that person at all, its not that big of an issue to where you enforce your beliefs upon others and put your rights over the rights of others

wintry zodiac
#

So how about I say, lets challenge LGBTQ norms because they suck, simple as that, LGBTQ norms suck.

rigid pumice
#

There are no legal consequences for misgendering someone. Now if you harass someone sure. It's illegal to harass people about anything though.

wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice There are no legal consequences for misgendering someone. Now if you harass some...

Many LGBTQ supporters or members are trying to give legal consequences, however its not only legal consequences that people may fear. People also fear threats, losing their job because the boss keeps getting complaints since they dont play along with the gender spectrum, and so on. LGBTQ supporters and members also often label anyone who doesnt use their pronouns as harrasemenet, which to put it shortly is "dumb"

#

anyway BRB

rigid pumice
rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac Many LGBTQ supporters or members are trying to give legal consequences, however ...

Yes. You can lose your job if you don't respect your coworkers. Sorry not sorry. People who are assholes in a work environment under the guise of expressing their rights are just creating a hostile work environment and no company wants to deal with that.

Companies also don't put up with people who claim discrimination at every turn. Someone misgendering someone because they didn't know or didn't understand or for using sexist or racist language if they didn't understand it was offensive is generally just given an explanation as to why. Now if they keep doing it sure, they should be fired. Imagine if someone just came in and called all Christians zombie worshipping cannabils? And kept doing it despite being told how offensive it was to much of the staff. Ya the company should just have to keep them employed right?

clever quest
# wintry zodiac Never forced anyone to act like theres 2 genders, or even believe that, I simply...

That's not true. You've been asking people from the LGBTQ+ communities to hide their presence from you, which is forcing them to act like their genders do not exist.
And you've still never provided any evidence at all about why you believe there are only two genders. So no, you didn't state why you believed it. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. If you can.
You don't have the option of forcing your views on this on anyone else. Our society agrees with us, and prevents you from spreading your view. That what society is for, enforcing rules for the betterment of the whole.

clever quest
# wintry zodiac It has tons to do with freedom of speech, if you cant respect my opinion and my ...

There's no necessity to respect everyone's opinions equally. When an opinion has been established to be factually incorrect, we are fine to just dismiss it. Equality and anti-discrimination laws do not require us to accept any idiot with a nonsense idea, we're only required to accept views that have some validity.

The LGBTQ+ communities are not harmful to society. They don't force their views on anyone, and since it's not a choice it doesn't affect the birth rate whatsoever. These things that you are saying are just lies. Where did you get them from? We can show you why your sources are wrong if you will tell us what your sources are.

Of course we can enforce the majority views on you, when you're clearly in the wrong according to the consensus in our society. Again, that's exactly what government is for. There's nothing wrong at all with enforcing society's rules in order to protect it's citizens from misinformation and discrimination.

#

We're not forcing you to believe that there are more than two genders. We're just forcing you to act like you do.

wintry zodiac
# clever quest That's not true. You've been asking people from the LGBTQ+ communities to hide t...

That's not true. You've been asking people from the LGBTQ+ communities to hide their presence from you, which is forcing them to act like their genders do not exist.

Asking LGBTQ+ individuals to hide their identities doesn't force them to believe in only 2 genders. Because I dont directly force them to act like their genders dont exist (in my POV they still dont but lets just say they do), I simply dont want to interact with the lgtbq member and that isnt forcing my beliefs on them, why? Because I could care less about what you identify as and I just want to do my own thing, and you probably do your own thing. Me simply not really feeling comfortable with lgbtq communuties and asking them not to include me in their thing isnt a way of forcing my beliefs on them, I dont know what world it is in.

And you've still never provided any evidence at all about why you believe there are only two genders. So no, you didn't state why you believed it. I'm still waiting for you to explain that. If you can.

I believe in only two genders—male and female—and base my view on biological differences such as XX and XY chromosomes, distinct reproductive roles, and traditional cultural and historical norms. I accept genetic distinctions between males and females and the consistency of these categories across various cultures and historical periods as proof. My perspective is also supported by many religious teachings and legal frameworks that recognize and enforce binary gender roles.
If you want more info just ask, but im gonna answer later probably.

You don't have the option of forcing your views on this on anyone else. Our society agrees with us, and prevents you from spreading your view. That what society is for, enforcing rules for the betterment of the whole.

#

^ I am not forcing my views on you and you shouldnt have the option to force your views on me, "Our" is an exaggeration because we both are apart of different parts of the society, your part of the society agrees with you meanwhile mine doesnt. My society prevents you from spreading your view and your society prevents me from spreading my view. Society wont better the whole by enforcing one's beliefs onto another, thats not what society is for.

wintry zodiac
clever quest
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice Yes. You can lose your job if you don't respect your coworkers. Sorry not sorry....

Yes. You can lose your job if you don't respect your coworkers. Sorry not sorry. People who are assholes in a work environment under the guise of expressing their rights are just creating a hostile work environment and no company wants to deal with that.

Would you be happy if I said you should lose your job for not supporting the Sharia Law? 🤷 (obviously lack of context but I can expand on this later)

radiant trout
#

For example

#

You can't say: ''I hate all jews. Jews are cause of all the wrong shit in the world'' Because that is antisemetic and would be considered hate speech

#

Because that directly infringes on someone elses life

#

You may believe that all you want

#

Its just not socially accepted to say that out loud

#

and in many countries even punishable

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

For the same reason, saying the stuff you do is not accepted, as it directly infringes on someone elses life

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

If you go out and say non-binary people shouldnt be non-binary outside of their homes, than that directly infringes on their freedom

#

There is no way to deny that

#

Thats literally dictating how they should live their lifes

rigid pumice
wintry zodiac
rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac If a religious co worker said theres only 2 genders and you dont play along with...

If they ask you to use their preferred name or pronouns and you consistently refuse, yes you should be fired because you are creating a hostile work environment. The same as if you called all the women "baby" and were consistently asked to stop but continued.

That's not forcing beliefs in you, again it is requiring you to act like a civilized human while at work. No one is stopping you from thinking there are two genders but yes they can make you be cordial or face consequences.

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout If you go out and say non-binary people shouldnt be non-binary outside of their ...

Never said outside of their homes, I said infront of me and anyone who doesnt wanna deal with it, it doesnt infringe with their freedom as it can be framed as a personal choice in how one interacts with others. This request can stem from an individual's own beliefs or comfort levels regarding gender identity and pronouns, rather than an intent to restrict another's freedom. Someone making this request simply argues that they are exercising their own right to free speech and personal belief, without preventing the other person from expressing their gender identity in other contexts.

rigid pumice
radiant trout
#

And your right not to be bothered stops before their right to out themselves

#

So in that case, its just a big fat L for you

#

but thats how the world works

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

I don't like football. I can't demand all football fans to not do football related stuff in public during a big tournament because I don't like it

#

Its not rocket science

#

You are just too stubborn to actually accept other human beings as a person if they don't hold the same beliefs as you do

#

which is sickening

wintry zodiac
rigid pumice
clever quest
# wintry zodiac > That's not true. You've been asking people from the LGBTQ+ communities to hide...

You're not asking LGBTQ+ people to leave you out of their activities. You're asking them to stop their activities in public. There's a big difference there. If all you wanted was to not be included in LGBTQ+ activities then congratulations, you're already not.

Biology doesn't split into two gender categories, so that argument is nonsense. XXY exists as well as XX and XY. The other biological properties of people's bodies have even more types.

There are at least three reproductive roles before you even get into anything unusual. Providing sperm, providing eggs, and providing neither if you are infertile. And since there are many other creatures with different reproductive roles again, from those that provide both parts, to those that change sex, nature has proved that there are more than just two sexes naturally, never mind only two genders. There is no reproductive system support for the idea that there are only two genders.

So that leaves cultural and historical reasons. You believe it because other people have told you. Unfortunately, those people were wrong. This is the problem with basing beliefs on ideas that were created before newer discovering were made. You end up sticking to obviously out of date information.

Religious teachings definitely fall under that category, so are not a good source of information on much at all.

Legal frameworks...well, our legal framework enforces the view that there are more than two genders. You can make your own up I guess, that does it differently. but while you live in our society you have to obey our rules. So again, it's our way or the highway on this I'm afraid.

radiant trout
rigid pumice
radiant trout
#

Because we as a society decided that it is concidered indecent

wintry zodiac
clever quest
rigid pumice
rigid pumice
radiant trout
#

Skitles if you don't mind me asking, where are you from?

wintry zodiac
# clever quest You're not asking LGBTQ+ people to leave you out of their activities. You're ask...

You're not asking LGBTQ+ people to leave you out of their activities. You're asking them to stop their activities in public. There's a big difference there. If all you wanted was to not be included in LGBTQ+ activities then congratulations, you're already not.

Biology doesn't split into two gender categories, so that argument is nonsense. XXY exists as well as XX and XY. The other biological properties of people's bodies have even more types.

Ive already answered the intersex problem and how it could be fixed. I do not want LGBTQ people to include me on their activities, and I also do not want to see inflatable sex organs every month.

wintry zodiac
# clever quest You're not asking LGBTQ+ people to leave you out of their activities. You're ask...

There are at least three reproductive roles before you even get into anything unusual. Providing sperm, providing eggs, and providing neither if you are infertile. And since there are many other creatures with different reproductive roles again, from those that provide both parts, to those that change sex, nature has proved that there are more than just two sexes naturally, never mind only two genders. There is no reproductive system support for the idea that there are only two genders.

So that leaves cultural and historical reasons. You believe it because other people have told you. Unfortunately, those people were wrong. This is the problem with basing beliefs on ideas that were created before newer discovering were made. You end up sticking to obviously out of date information.

Religious teachings definitely fall under that category, so are not a good source of information on much at all.

Legal frameworks...well, our legal framework enforces the view that there are more than two genders. You can make your own up I guess, that does it differently. but while you live in our society you have to obey our rules. So again, it's our way or the highway on this I'm afraid.

Naturally saying that because other animals have more than 2 sexes doesnt mean that humans do 😂??? Gender definition is based on your perspective and your perspective shouldnt be forced on everyone else and isnt the same as everyone else, gender for me is based off of sex. Intersex anomalies have solutions. You also cannot say that those people were wrong, again because your definition of gender is different than mine and your values are different. Not everyone legal frameworks enforce the view that there are more than 2 genders, also religion doesnt fall under the same category because its completely different.

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Thanks tho

near ember
#

Wait why are you speaking like youre american/from america

#

Lol

radiant trout
#

Helps me to try and better understand your position

near ember
#

Also thx for randomly inserting me into the converation

radiant trout
near ember
#

Cury

#

Rude?

radiant trout
#

You don't think its rude when people name you without mentioning you?>

near ember
#

I dont really mind tbh

radiant trout
#

Okay fair enough

wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice I don't believe in Jesus, but I don't feel the need to bring it up anytime someo...

I dont believe in LGBTQ either, and I dont feel the need to bring it up anytime someone says they are Gay or lesbian or transgender. I could care less like you could care less about Jesus (pbuh) and our beliefs. If im in a LGBTQ lobby or room designated for them (for whatever reason, which I most likely wont be) I obviously wouldnt be bringing up a debate or disrespect them in any way, I dont know why you have to bring this up anyway unless you got this impression of me

radiant trout
#

So skitles, I am wondering. What to you is different between for example LGBT people outing themselves in public and sports fans outing themselves in public?

#

Or do you believe both to not be okay?

wintry zodiac
near ember
radiant trout
near ember
#

Same

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout So skitles, I am wondering. What to you is different between for example LGBT pe...

LGBTQ people are often trying to force their beliefs on me, or rather change my belief that there is 2 genders, also Ive listed many reasons previously on why I dont like pretty much most of the protests or huge activity from LGBTQ, even if I dont like a certain sport like American football I dont get offended because they dont really change my belief in anyway, if anything sometimes they might invite you to a session of watching with them despite not you not liking the sport in general. The sports fans outing themselves in public is completely different from LGBTQ people

radiant trout
#

Oh I have another question. Do you experience the most contact with LGBT related things on social media or in real life?

near ember
#

I measure oppresion purely on how many reasons the nazis would have to kill you. If it's 0, you're a nazi peteOK

wintry zodiac
near ember
#

Shouldn't*

radiant trout
#

I have personally never started a conversation in public about myself being lgbt

#

So i don't think Ive ever bothered anyone

#

Yet in your eyes I am some insufferable person that should not exist

#

I am just trying to understand why that is

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Oh I have another question. Do you experience the most contact with LGBT related...

I experienced a lot of the contact with LGBT in real life, mainly because I was recently in a school and a good example was me literally getting in trouble for calling some trans boy (biologically girl) a her an accident which didnt help their case, however Im actually happy I got in trouble now because the more I interact with LGBTQ supporters the more I get the impression of "if you dont support us you hate us and you are a neo-nazi" etc etc

near ember
radiant trout
#

We'll get exposed

near ember
#

Aw damn I said it

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Not saying it definately was

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Yet you feel the need to express you want to limit my rights as a person

I dont limit your rights as a person by saying that I dont want to play in your grand scheme of things, neither do I limit your rights by asking you to hide your protests with a lot of sexual content because not only does it make me and many other uncomfortable but also exposes a lot of sexual content to children and thats wrong. This doesnt really limit your rights however you forcing a change in my beliefs is kind of similar to the british people forcing native australians to change their culture and beliefs and etc.

near ember
#

lol I like that you reacted on the post with these emojis: 🏳️‍🌈 🇧 🇸

wintry zodiac
#

Anyway im gonna go sleep

#

Im gonna get back on this later

near ember
#

Shows how willing you are to be convinced

radiant trout
near ember
#

Dont mind the noise

#

Your mother is loud

wintry zodiac
near ember
#

lol

radiant trout
#

Hmm we add delusional to the list too

radiant trout
# wintry zodiac I dont limit your rights as a person by saying that I dont want to play in your ...

neither do I limit your rights by asking you to hide your protests
Well actrually that does limit my rights. I have a right to protest (article 9 of my constitution) and it is not allowed to discriminate me based on my sexual orientation (article 1 of my constitution). Therefore, suggesting that I am not openly demonstrate IS in fact limiting my rights.

because not only does it make me and many other uncomfortable
You don't have the right to not be uncomfortable. I do have the right of demonstration and the right to be treated equal, irrespective of my sexual orientation.

but also exposes a lot of sexual content to children and thats wrong
That is your belief, not a fact.

This doesnt really limit your rights however you forcing a change in my beliefs
I'm not forcing anything on you other than treating me equal to anyone else. That means being treated with respect and dignity. Thats how I am protected by my consitution.

#

You feeling entitled to force your beliefs on me, whilst simultaneously complaining on how I am forcing my beliefs on you is the cherry on top.

#

Bottomline is, I am protected by my constitution with my views and bahaviour, you on the otherhand don't have any rights not to be offended or not to be uncomfortable. If you are unconfortable by the actions of someone else, you can choose to leave the situation and not be uncomfortable again.

#

And I find it really strange that you think that you not being made uncomfortable is more important than me being able to live my life without being discriminated against.

near ember
#

Remember

#

He thinks gay people shouldn't exist

#

He denies this but it's true

#

It's not that protests make him uncomfortable

#

It's the existence

#

In his world, Canada would be building camps rn

#

I found it pointless to argue with him because fascists don't like empiricism

#

It proves them wrong

clever quest
# wintry zodiac > You're not asking LGBTQ+ people to leave you out of their activities. You're a...

You're saying that your basis for believing there are only two genders is Biology. But Biology doesn't agree with you. So your solution to that is to try and find a way to change biology so that is agrees with you? You've just destroyed your whole argument right there.

If you don't want to see what other people do then I suggest you don't go out in public. That's the only way you can control what you do or don't see.

ebon perch
#

Why is the question of gender important if it has no impact on anything physically? Wouldn't sex be a better alternative? There can be infinite genders since gender is just subjective to the person, biologically there are 2 sexes, some people can be born with parts of both (kind of) but ultimately they are born with traits leaning more towards one sex.

clever quest
# wintry zodiac > There are at least three reproductive roles before you even get into anything ...

Gender isn't a perspective, it's a fact. You've already admitted that human biology doesn't fit into two categories, so really you're just arguing that there's a part of nature you don't agree with and wish it would go away.

We can absolutely say that people that think there are only two genders are wrong. because they are, and we have the evidence to back that up, which we've already shown you, and you've already agreed backs up our point about more than two genders existing in nature. Your argument is now reduced to claiming that people have to allow you to believe in a fantasy world. You're welcome to do that, but no public place is going to confirm to your fantasy reliably.

clever quest
clever quest
rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac I experienced a lot of the contact with LGBT in real life, mainly because I was ...

Based on what you have said here it is hard for me to believe it was "an accident". People do not get in trouble for mistakenly misgendering someone once.

They might have a discussion about the importance of respecting a students identity, which someone with your views could perceive as getting in trouble.

I'd like to be clear, are you saying you received an official reprimand in your employment file for misgendering a student one time by accident.

My friends dad still forgets to use she occasionally but he corrects himself when he does so no one is ever upset with him.

ebon perch
#

Not whether people can get upset over being called something they believe is wrong.

clever quest
ebon perch
clever quest
#

Or is there a physical way to tell what language someone speaks without them telling us with words?

ebon perch
#

No

clever quest
#

There are tons of things we can only learn about by someone communicating that to us. Gender is one.

ebon perch
#

Yes, but it doesn't represent anything

#

Language is something that we can experience from someone else, religion is a belief system that you can learn, gender is just subjective terms for yourself.

clever quest
ebon perch
clever quest
#

Gender includes sexuality, but also other types of relationship.

#

What types of relationship people are capable of having is very important information for any kind of social situation.

ebon perch
#

How is that not just sexuality, what other relationship types differentiate it from sexuality?

#

Looking at various dictionaries it seems to have nothing to do with "relationships" and more to do with an internal sense of which sex they want to identify as, or both, or neither.

rigid pumice
#

I would say gender is more about the outward expressions of our internal self. Mannerisms, dress, hair, physical characteristics, etc.

There is no true line of which things are masculine versus feminine outside of chromosomes and body parts, but because we collectively associate certain characteristics with men or women sometimes it makes more sense for a person to identify with one completely because frankly it's less confusing.

It would be kind of silly to expect a jacked trans man with a full face beard to go by she/her and use the women's room because they were born with or currently have a vagina that no one can see or may ever see.

clever quest
# ebon perch How is that not just sexuality, what other relationship types differentiate it f...

First off, you're aware that romance is different from sexuality, right? Not all romantic relationships are sexual, and vice versa.
Second, people simply end up in different types of relationships as a result of gender. For example, there's the classic gay male best friend that many women feel more comfortable with than a cis male friend. Knowing what someone is attracted to and what they are not attracted to is an important part of many people's decisions about who to spend time with in many ways.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice I would say gender is more about the outward expressions of our internal self. M...

I feel like a lot of people in this conversation would get upset with your comment there. I personally agree though. That's why I see people talking about gender though as relatively useless. I mean if I see someone dressed traditionalyl feminine, they look fmeinine, regardless of whether they are a female or male, I will call them a she/her, because that is what they appear to be. It seems for helpful to base pronouns on sex (or at least perceived sex where it is obvious enough they appear to look like one sex over the other) rather than personal identity. Doesn't mean they can't have their own sense of gender, but it shouldn't be the basis for what you refer to someone as.

rigid pumice
ebon perch
# clever quest First off, you're aware that romance is different from sexuality, right? Not all...

Yes, not all romantic relationships are sexual, but they are based upon sexual attraction largely. There may be external reasons to be in a romantic relationship with someone, but those are generally not romantic, such as people in the military getting together to get extra pay, or health benefits, etc.
Again, it just seems like you are talking about sexuality here, or youa re trying to redefine what gender is.

rigid pumice
#

I also can't xray their pants and I have no interest in arguing about it even if i could.

clever quest
#

Which seems self-evident.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice I've met women who look manly and men who look feminine but go by their sex base...

Yea, I mean if they are the type of person to want to point out what they want to be called, I'm not going to try to go out of my way to offend them. I've only ever experienced misgendering someone once, but it was a result of them wanting their pronouns to be based on their identity, which I was fine with doing, but they didn't seem to like me enough to even talk to me after I accidently called them pronouns based on their sex, rather than identity that I had no way of knowing.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch I feel like a lot of people in this conversation would get upset with your comme...

Authenticity is also important. Like the male body builder who entered a women's competition despite never identifying as a woman previously, taking no steps ever to live in a manner that would support his claim, no hormones, etc. Basically trying to be the thing conservatives claimed all trans women in sports were.

I don't support that kind of self ID. And neither does anyone else if you get down to it. You usually don't get down to the layer of talking about authenticity because most people against trans rights don't really care if they are authentic or not.

ebon perch
# clever quest I'm simply saying that gender is important in a lot of non-sexual relationships.

Yea, our personality does play a large role in sexual and non-sexual relationships. We weren't talking about non-romantic relationships though, unless I missed something. So this just leads us back now then, to gender and sexuality being different, which is what every dictionary I've seen also supports. Gender is based on self-identification, which is fine, but there is no way for outside people to know that.

clever quest
#

Pretty much every preference, in fact.

ebon perch
rigid pumice
# ebon perch Well doesn't that come from the idea though that some people place gender identi...

There is actually in cases like that. Which is why I'm fine with sports requiring hormone level tests and things like that. Really we need other fairness measures in sports like height and weight restrictions or no webbed feet for swimming competitions if we really care about fairness.

But if they just wanted to do it in their personal life sure go for it I guess. You can have a beard and be a woman I'm not going to argue with you.

#

I'm a gender abolitionist at the end of the day, but while we have genders it doesn't matter to me how people identify.

ebon perch
# clever quest Yes there is. You can ask. The same as with thousands of other things you only k...

Well yea, you can know anything from someone if you ask, when I talk to people, I don't ask them for every bit of information, especially in public when I'm not trying to have a conversation with them to get to know them. That is why I said a person from the outside. If someone comes up to me, they look and act largely more feminine than masculine, I am going to call them a ma'am, unless they tell me they'd like to be called something else.

Does it not seem easier to base pronouns on appearance rather than identity. Doesn't mean they can't have their own identity.

rigid pumice
ebon perch
# rigid pumice What if you think someone looks like a she and I think they look like a he? Shou...

I've never really ran into an occasion where it was difficult to tell if a person looked more masculine or feminine. Sure, if they want to be called something different, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect people to know that, or expect people to ask. Most people nowadays don't use pronouns when talking to people unless they're talking about someone. Like I say yes, ma'am, or sir to people, but that is just how I was raised, the only time I've ever used pronouns outside of that is when talking to someone about someone else, generally someone I know, so I know what they are or identify as.

clever quest
# ebon perch Well yea, you can know anything from someone if you ask, when I talk to people, ...

It's easier for you, but it's not easier for them. With any communication, it just makes sense to decide on the word to use between you. And it doesn't really matter to you, so just use what they suggest.

Also, I pointed out earlier to Skitles that something being simpler doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Otherwise we'd call everyone a woman, round our paychecks to $10,000, and just say that everyone is 10 years old, purely because those numbers are easier to remember.

ebon perch
clever quest
ebon perch
#

Those are subjective though, as gender is subjective...

clever quest
#

All descriptive language is subjective.

rigid pumice
ebon perch
#

Depends on what you mean. I have blue eyes, that is not subjective, the type of blue it is isn't subjective either, but it probably would be debated as most people wouldn't be able to identify the exact type of blue, hence you go for the obvious one, blue.

rigid pumice
#

And your eye color can change slightly over your life.

ebon perch
#

It's not necessarily that it can change, but how it changes.

rigid pumice
#

And what they believe about themselves can change over time, it doesn't change that right now they feel and identify as X even if they felt and identified as Y in the past and might identify as Z in the future.

ebon perch
#

Oh ok I see what you mean

rigid pumice
ebon perch
#

I agree with that yea, they do objectively identify as X, I guess what I was more meaning by objective, which now I guess I see it was the wrong word, was visible. Something everyone can see without needing input from someone else. So even biological sex in that case is out the picture for pronouns, but rather context clues.

south jungle
# wintry zodiac I dont limit your rights as a person by saying that I dont want to play in your ...

How would you react if somebody made a point of calling your mother "he" or "sir" repeatedly, even after being told that your mother is a woman? Would you argue that their belief (i.e., "your mother is a man") should be tolerated? If so, why do you think anyone should tolerate your belief that you shouldn't respect those around you who wish to go by some other pronoun?

We don't check what's in each other's pants to verify that somebody is a man or a woman. Instead, we operate on assumptions made about the individual's expressed identity (e.g. did they choose to wear a suit or a dress?). That's what is meant by gender. I don't need to understand why someone's identity diverges from their body parts (I often don't) to know that they are worthy of the same respect that I give to anyone else.

south jungle
rigid pumice
# south jungle I'm curious to hear more about your idea here. Sexual expression (ultimately inc...

It's a bit of a misleading term. The common idea behind gender abolition is not necessarily to get rid of gender entirely, as it's likely impossible, but to fully uncouple it from sex based assumptions.

To eliminate the knee jerk reaction that someone in a dress, wearing earrings, with long hair and makeup also has a vagina.

A boy playing with a Barbie (plastic often naked female looking dolls) will make them gay, but playing with action figures that look like gay porn models is very manly indeed.

All that bullshit needs to go.

ebon perch
#

Fr most boys as kids played with barbie dolls when they had the chance because they looked like women, I remember that vividly as a kid.

#

The time I played with action figures and stuff was to play and recreate war and fighting

#

They're both "dolls" but they have different reasons for why we use them, I imagine for girls as well.

wintry zodiac
#

You guys did not go easy, cuz I don’t know if I’m gonna read 5 pages worth of stuff and respond to all of it

wintry zodiac
#

You guys did not go easy, cuz I don’t know if I’m gonna read 5 pages worth of stuff and respond to all of it

#

Imma respond later

#

I’m in school

radiant trout
#

School?

#

Wait how old are you?

#

I got ragebaited by a 14 year old?

near ember
wintry zodiac
#

I wouldn’t say I was rage baiting

wintry zodiac
#

It has nothing to do with your sexual orientation

wintry zodiac
#

How about we protest anti LGBTQ views, it’s not illegal is it, especially if we don’t show public sexual content of any sort like your protests do

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac Yeah but your protests should not include sexual content, I don’t think that’s h...

Yeah but your protests should not include sexual content
Because you don't like it or because it is illegal. I was talking about the legality of things. Under my constitution, all I am doing is protected by my constitution, whereas all the things you get triggered about have no legal basis for protection. Ergo, you are in the wrong here. You can get annoyed by me, you can even feel uncomfortable by me, but you don't have any RIGHTS that say that my behaviour in public should be adjusted.

radiant trout
#

But I am not from Canada, maybe the law there is different

radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac It’s not a belief it’s a fact, there’s literal proof on the internet that lgbtq ...

Yeah but i don't see an inflatable sex organ as ''exposing children to sexual content'', there is nothing sexual about a plastic air-filled object. What's next, you're going to claim that women wearing pants is sexual content because you can see the shape of their butt?

Also stop with the crying about being made uncomfortable. Their is no right you have to not be made uncomfortable. It is not an argument against these protests. You are just a whiny little kid that was protected too much by their parents that resulted in now being made uncomfortable by the thought of anything related to sex, sexual content or reproductoin. Matter of fact is that sex is a normal thing and you shouldn't stigmatize it. The real problem here is that you are afraid of something that should be completely normal to anyone, and before the Renaissance, WAS very normal to anyone.

radiant trout
# wintry zodiac I don’t treat you less than anyone else do I?

You do. You are claiming I shouldn't be myself out in public whereas you are not saying that to anyone else. I have not heard you say that other people should all conform to YOUR ideas because otherwise they make YOU uncomfortable, yet for me and people like me, you do. That means you treat me different which means you are directly discriminating against me and others like me.

#

The fact that you cannot see that really blows my mind

#

Anyway

#

thats end of the discussion

#

You are clearly unereducated, too young to have a proper discussion, not able to make up your own rationale and most of all you are a misinformed ignorant bigot that actively proposes to discriminate against minority groups.

#

And all that because ''it makes you uncomfortable''

wintry zodiac
#

I’m still in school btw so I might cut out at some point

wintry zodiac
#

Brb

radiant trout
#

But that is different from me telling what I can and cannot do in public

#

You have argued that I should keep my beliefs and values to myself because they don't allign with yours

#

Thats where the problem starts

#

As soon as you tell me how I can live my life we have an issue

#

Because that is going against my rights

#

But yeah, you can protest whatever you want

radiant trout
#

Why do you keep lying to try and prove a point that does not exist

#

?

#

You are not in the right here. You may hold your beliefs, but you are in no way allowed to treat people different based on the fact that they hold other beliefs as that would be discriminatory in nature. All you want to do is the second. That is simply not allowed. YOU are the one who should keep his values to himself, not the LGBT community

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

I don’t think I lied

#

Brb again

south jungle
rigid pumice
#

People often bring up the naked bike ride in Portland, which has been going on for decades, is known well in advance, and is supported by the city.

If you are worried about your kids seeing general nudity in this case it's on you to keep them away from it.

#

But general nudity to me is very different from depicting actual sex acts.

#

If they go to a museum they are likely to see boobs and dicks in paintings and scultures.

south jungle
# radiant trout Yeah but i don't see an inflatable sex organ as ''exposing children to sexual co...

We agree that the demand "keep it to yourself", i.e. "everyone must act straight in public" is a ridiculous. Wearing a strapon in public is a statement meant to violate the viewer's sense of morality -- the kind a protest is meant to make. We can't pretend, as you say, that "there is nothing sexual about a plastic air-filled object".

Bringing this back to an actual discussion: clearly there must be some level of comfort afforded to people in public spaces. At what point should we draw the line, and why? Should public sex be accepted?

clever quest
#

I think some of that is about striking a balance between allowing people to be who they are, and encouraging them to become better people according to the rules of that society.

#

Where that balance lies is a question of how much challenge is acceptable to people, and so it will depend a lot on the other challenges they're facing in their lives. If we're living in a period of great challenges for a lot of people (which I think we are for a variety of reasons), then it would seem appropriate to try not confront people with more additional challenges than necessary right now.

south jungle
# clever quest Where that balance lies is a question of how much challenge is acceptable to peo...

I don't agree that we're living a period of greater challenges for a lot of people compared to any other point in time, instead the challenges are changing. As we progress technologically, as we are becoming more disconnected with those physically near to us, we are becoming more varied in our individual beliefs (I'm planning on expounding in Pete's thread, "I never said she stole my money"). Gender norms were traditionally reinforced proximally: everyone around you wore the same set of clothing.

The modern challenge is in recalibrating the limits of our tolerance of others around us and their rights to think and act as they wish. Is Skitles ethically bound to believe others have a right to partake in activities that make him uncomfortable? Is Cury ethically bound to respect Skitles' opinion as expressed on this thread?

wintry zodiac
#

I think we can agree on something here, there are some things that I was wrong and you guys were also wrong on, or not rather "wrong" but technically not right either. You clearly stated that I was wrong that there was only 2 genders, however this clearly depends and I stated before that this mattered on the perspective of the individual, either he has a traditional pov or another pov. You also do have some hypocritical views on some things, however I do feel that I must admit me completely disallowing LGBTQ protests or celebrations does technically limit their rights as an individual, so I feel that I do not want to completely disallow but rather restrict on the sexual content presented in many of those protests and celebrations that shouldnt be viewed in the eyes of a child. Also I may have not provided actual statistical evidence for my claim that the addition of transgender women would increase SA's, however I did clearly state that it was simply a logical hypothesis/statement and that I believe in it because it only makes sense. I mean sure there isnt any actual statistical evidence (yet) but as there have been many cases of transgender women SA other women then it makes sense that it would technically increase the total SA's. And that its safer for women to be in bathrooms with no precense of biological males who many identify as a woman for the sole purpose of commiting an Assault. The point being is how do we solve this issue so that both traditionalist people and lgbtq people can be happy? To be fair adding no gender bathrooms could potentially make both happy as there would be no more fuss about who should go to which bathroom but it makes many women more vulnerable. Many of you are compeletely wrong however thinking that I dont recognize the rights of anyone who is part of the LGBTQ community or their supporters, say what you want and sure it may be your opinion that you view me as someone who doesnt value their rights, but I do and you cant change that.

#

Now I also must say that I did not actually mean everyone should act straight in public and that does restrict some of their laws, however there are many things that LGBTQ members should keep to themselves rather than go into traditionalist personal lives, these things include the teaching of LGBTQ topic in public schools. Now this is simply my view on this and its not compeletly wrong, However you cannot ignore the rights of many parents that do not want their kid to be taught LGBTQ topics because of personal beliefs and religious reasons. Its pretty hypocritical to say that if you dont want your kids to be taught LGBTQ topics then you should homeschool the kid yourself, but then get offended or say that its not right for LGBTQ to be homeschooled as well. There are many reasons such as the Indoctrination of LGBTQ views, which may lead the kid into accepting or adopting LGBTQ lifestyles and beliefs (this is related to environmental factors affecting someones sexuality and etc) despite the parents wanting their kid to remain traditional and religious (Just saying, there very much could be a god and I personally believe there is one). Parents also want to preserve our traditional and social norms and simply dont agree with LGBTQ. Also LGBTQ may affect childrens mental health and question their identity, because before LGBTQ existed the concept of transgender and gay people were practically not existent (still existed but didnt really affect society as a whole). So as a whole Parents do have a right in what their child learn and should have a right in that manner, you attempting to change others beliefs and values does limit their rights as a whole and Im sure you are fimiliar with that concept so dont be hypocritical.

#

Anyway Im gonna go sleep now Im a little busy over this week

south jungle
# wintry zodiac Now I also must say that I did not actually mean everyone should act straight in...

What LGBT topics are you thinking about when you bring up the school curriculum? Are we talking Jack and Joe are a couple in a word problem or describing the excruciating details of how gay sex works to first graders? If you can swap the couple out with a heterosexual couple and it's still weird then we should be talking about obscenity law and not LGBT representation.

The case you appear to make repeatedly in this thread is that you have just set of morals (e.g. neither hetero- nor homosexual couples should be kissing in public), but that the LGBT community consistently violates your moral values while the rest of society isn't. That's why others are asking you to provide quantifiable metrics -- there is an obvious disconnect between us about how much the LGBT community is violating societal norms compared to the rest of society. I doubt I'm alone in assuming this comes from your consumption of sensationalized media. Has bathroom sexual assault actually increased because of the presence of more transgender women in bathrooms? There are multiple effects that must be weighed. If the objective was to eliminate sexual assault in the bathroom the conversation should really hinge around single-occupancy bathrooms and panic alarms.

"... many parents do not want their kid to be taught LGBTQ because of personal beliefs and religious reasons." Do you think parents should be able to opt out of other parts of the school curriculum? Could I decide that my child shouldn't learn algebra and force the school system to cater to my child in math class? If not, what is the meaningful difference?

south jungle
#

"Indoctrination of LGBTQ views... may lead the kid into ... adopting LGBTQ lifestyles and beliefs... despite the parents wanting their kid to remain traditional and religious (Just saying, there very much could be a god and I personally believe there is one)." Sure, there could be a god. It may not be your god. Perhaps God is transgender and these parents are condemning their children to burn in hell. We separate church and state because there are many churches and many people who disagree even within the same church.
Parents also have a moral duty to allow their children to develop and express their own identity. If Muslim families were permitted an exemption to a school's dress code, would you have a problem if girls came to you and said their families were coercing them to wear a headress? Should the state enforce the will of the families and spend its resources forcing those girls to wear the headdress?

"LGBTQ may affect childrens mental health and question their identity" If you speak to an LGBT person you will quickly come to understand that their mental health has been strongly impacted by their parents' tolerance or intolerance of their identity.

"... before LGBTQ existed the concept of transgender and gay people were practically non existent (still existed but didnt really affect society as a whole)." This is patently false. Homosexuality has been widely practiced, acknowledged, and argued over culturally worldwide throughout history. Gender was a complex idea in pre-colonial America. Eunuchs are believed to have been functionally a third gender in some cultures. The fact that LGBT issues are a prevalent political issue today does not suggest that they did not affect society as a whole in the past.

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac Now I also must say that I did not actually mean everyone should act straight in...

Parents do not own their children. They don't get to decide whether they are gay or straight, trans or cis. They don't get to decide who their kids marry or what career path they choose or what hobbies they enjoy. They also don't get to decide whether their child will believe in their religion or their God. These are personal. Some choices, some innate.

And I always find it very troubling whenever someone expresses an opinion where they think parents have this sort of authority.

As parents, we have a responsibility to guide our children to become happy and successful adults. Guiding and forcing are very different things though. And while there are some occasions where kids do need to be forced to do things (school, dentist, doctor, etc.) for their health and well being, there is no evidence that the type of control you are advocating for is in any way beneficial and is usually linked to extremely poor family relationships.

ebon perch
# south jungle What LGBT topics are you thinking about when you bring up the school curriculum?...

Do you think parents should be able to opt out of other parts of the school curriculum?
The difference between something like algebra and something like learning about LGBTQ beliefs is that one is an actual educational benefit that you can use in your life, one is just a belief system. Even though I am a Christian, I don't believe schools should go around teaching Christianity to kids. LGBTQ is also a sexuality related topic, which is not something schools should be teaching kids. (Note, I don't believe they should be teaching kids about heterosexuality either)

south jungle
# ebon perch > Do you think parents should be able to opt out of other parts of the school cu...

Do you hold the position that schools should only teach material that holds educational value (or at least that parents should be able to opt their children out of material without educational value)? If so I respect that position, but it's worth discussing whether or not the LGBTQ "belief system" holds any educational value.

Do you think somebody should be teaching kids about sexuality, just not schools? If not, why? If the topic of sexuality were to hold demonstrable educational value, should we not teach it in schools?

rigid pumice
# ebon perch > Do you think parents should be able to opt out of other parts of the school cu...

That comes down to what you think is being taught. Having a book with gay characters or facing difficulties related to being gay in English class is not about beliefs, it's reality. And I think it's very difficult to argue that there shouldn't be any stories like this as part of curriculum. No one is ever able to explain why depicting straight romance is okay but gay romance is not, because there is no way to parse it out without going down the "I just don't think it's normal" route.

Health class and sex ed also seem like reasonable places to discuss the more personal details. No sex education is advocating for students to engage in sex, it is just teaching them the reality, risks, and precautions to take if they should choose to engage in sex.

Every study shows that areas with comprehensive sex education have lower rates of underage sex, unwanted pregnancies, and STDs among minors. So to also include similar information that specifically relates to gay sex seems reasonable. That doesn't mean they are advocating for anyone to engage in it.

ebon perch
# south jungle Do you hold the position that schools should only teach material that holds educ...

I would agree, schools should only be teaching things with educational value (in the sense of math, science, english, etc. Not sexuality, religions, etc. At least until they are 18+, I mean no one can stop them from learning about it from other kids, online, etc. although online does have ways of preventing it such as just keeping your kids off of the internet, but even then you may not be able to completely control that outside fo your own house.

I think anything outside of what I said schools should be teach should be elft up to the parents to teach, and they will also learn just from living life. I mean, most kids aren't taught cursive anymore, which is pretty important regarding signatures. I think the disconnect comes from what we mean by educational value, because almost everything can be educational, as that is just learning, getting punched in the mouth for hitting someone bigger than you is pretty educational, but it is not what I mean, I mean things related to math, science, english, history (which yes, can include protest and stuff such as the civil rights movement, womens rights, trans rights, etc.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice That comes down to what you think is being taught. Having a book with gay charac...

I don't think any sort of romance should be taught to kids, straight or not. Now, I think kids as they get older, about High School, reasonably could be taught that, but then we're just drawing another arbitrary line, when we could just follow already set ones, such as the legal age of being an adult (18 in the US). I'd be more inclinced to accept depictions of romance in high school literature classes (not just using the classs to straight up teach about different sexualities though) rather than middle school or elementary.

I disagree with the primace of sex ed though, I don't think that is something schools should be teaching. I even found it strange when I was in the class, something about a stranger talking to me about sex just felt unsettling. No sex ed is not advocating students to engage in sex, it's advocating them to not learn about sex from schools, but rather their parents.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch I don't think any sort of romance should be taught to kids, straight or not. Now...

Here's the thing though, and it's the reason we have sex ed. Parents are uncomfortable or unwilling to talk to their kids about sex. That's why we have sex education in schools. Parents pushed for schools to do it because they didn't want to.

And it's really important that teenagers with raging emotions and desires they don't fully understand are given accurate and helpful information about it so they can make good decisions. Teens shouldn't suffer because of their parents unwillingness to be honest with them.

ebon perch
rigid pumice
# ebon perch Ok, so if those parents don't want to teach their kids sex ed, and instead pass ...

And what about the parents who refuse to let their kids take sex ed and refuse to teach them anything about it? Or worse, teach them that their normal bodily functions are sinful and shameful and never let them hear opposing viewpoints.

Parents do not have absolute control over their children. Society does have a role in making sure all children receive certain minimum standards. Not being abused, receiving an education, not starving, etc.

south jungle
# ebon perch I would agree, schools should only be teaching things with educational value (in...

We're on the same page about educational value. I also support teaching about Christianity (and other religions). Christianity has had a massive impact on every facet of our life. To tiptoe around Christianity in class would be a disservice: it's hard to even mention history without mentioning Christianity. Where I think we do agree is that school should not be pushing Christianity as a belief system. The purpose of (good) education is not to directly push a person toward any beliefs, it is to provide all of the facts and let that person make judgements based on the facts.

Likewise we shouldn't dance around sexuality in other topics (namely history) in school because it is part of the human condition. It has impacted literally every human being ever. It is an unsettling topic to discuss with a stranger, but it is important. Sex ed has a demonstrable impact (as Bains has already stated) on sexual assault rates, STDs, unwanted pregnancy rates... is that not educational value?

ebon perch
# rigid pumice And what about the parents who refuse to let their kids take sex ed and refuse t...

That is their business. If you think not learning about sex is abuse, that sounds like your particular set of beliefs, not everyones. The point of the US is to give as much freedoms to the people. Not teaching about sex is not the same as starving your kid. And saying that people can't teach their kids about their religion goes against the first amendment as well as the foundational principal (even though it isn't neccisarily written into the constitution of separating the governemnt from any religious principles.

ebon perch
# south jungle We're on the same page about educational value. I also support teaching about Ch...

But how the child learns about that should be up to the parents, not the school/government. Sure, if a specific event in history involves sexuality, such as trans rights or homosexuality movements and stuff, they can be mentioned, but the class shouldn't be focused on going into detail about each sexuality, straight, gay, asexual, etc.

Religion has a demonstrable impact on a variety of facets in someones life, doesn't mean that should be pushed in school either. (Also again, as I mentioned about the educational value thing, I don't think things with educational value have to be taught in school, everything has educational value. The thigns that shoudl be taught are the core curiculums. Maybe allow electives and such, as they usually do in High School where kids can choose to learn about them with consent from the parents, but not part of core classes.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch That is their business. If you think not learning about sex is abuse, that sound...

Not teaching about sex is harmful is not just an opinion, but it's backed up by data. Those who receive comprehensive age appropriate sex education have less sex, less pregnancy, less incidents of sa, less stds. So not teaching teens about sex is harmful to them as a group.

Teaching about <> forced indoctrination and sheltering from alternatives.

I'm aware that it's not feasible to prevent parents from forcing their ideologies on their children, but it should be heavily discouraged in all communities.

People always seem to forget that kids are people and have rights too, and parents rights don't outweigh children's rights. It's muddy territory I'll grant that. But there comes a point where the sheltering from reality becomes damaging enough for intervention.

Some religions demand that children be beaten when they disobey, or even killed. And while most religions don't enforce those rules anymore we as a society also wouldn't let them and its hard to argue that we should.

Religion isn't a get out of jail free card to do whatever you want to do. Islam's rules for when children can be married and a marriage consummated are particularly disgusting and should not be given any leniency in secular/democratic countries.

Freedom of religion is an individuals, so I would argue that a parent forcing their child to follow their religion and not exposing them to others is actually violating the child's freedom of religion though I know that will not be a mainstream viewpoint anytime soon.

south jungle
# ebon perch But how the child learns about that should be up to the parents, not the school/...

I understand your belief, but I'm trying to prod at the fundamental reason why you believe that parents should decide how the child learns about sexuality/religion. It seems clear to me that sexuality and religion have real educational value, as opposed to your example of a fist to the face having "educational value" (clearly one type of educational value has no place in school). If sexuality and math both have educational value, why should parents decide whether to opt their child out of sex ed but not algebra?

ebon perch
# rigid pumice Not teaching about sex is harmful is not just an opinion, but it's backed up by ...

Sex ed as a kid brought me to having more sex. I had no idea what is was before then. I had learned from my parents not to touch peoples "private parts" or let them touch mine, but not the purpose of it, because there is no reason. I learned about it in middle school, before it really even is applicable to most kids. (which I guess nowadays is false because of social media being accessible to more and more kids with sexuality being pushed on kids at younger and younger ages). Do you think not teaching kids about how to pay taxes is harmful to them? Teach them self-defense? Why are those not being pushed for in schools? School cannot teach you everything, nor should it. School is to teach you the fundamental core curiculums to give you a basic education and prepare you to either continue that education through trade school, college, etc. Not to teach you every life skill or fact you'll need to know. That job should be the parents. Instead of taking time from the important uses of school, lets use it to keep teaching kids about the main subjects. That is my opinion. There are plenty of things we could teach in school, doesn't mean we should.

Kids do have right, granted the government loves restricting them as much as possible. Freedom of speech is heavily limited in school, 4th amendment as well. It sounds like you are more saying: My morality is superior, and the further you get from my morality, the more your kids should be taken from you. I don't beleive that is what you are trying to say, but it sounds like it a lot.

Well yea, we do limit religious practices to an extent when it comes to involuntary actions for others, because we believe in freedom. They can practice their religions as long as they don't force anyone into doing something they don't want to do that would reasonably harm them.

Freedom of religion is an indivual right, protecting it from the government. Not people, but you can't break laws to do such, such as kidnapping. Kids however are under th

#

-e parents protection and therefore are subject to the parents rules. At 18 they no longer have to, even younger than that they can get emancipated.

ebon perch
# south jungle I understand your belief, but I'm trying to prod at the fundamental reason *why*...

Well my belief of those topics comes from the idea that I believe as Americans we should have as little government control on our lives. Why do you think some things with educational value should be taught at schools, but others not, is it just subjective opinion on what you find better to teach?

Also again, you aren't discerning between the types of education. You have education, which is just learning, and then you have the education you receive from schools, to prepare you for further schooling. Learning about homosexuality isn't going to help you get As on math, science, history, or english. Those are the 4 subjects that should be taught in schools, anything else should be electives that require parental consent as the governemnt shouldn't be able to just add courses and say your child now has to learn this.

If parents want their kids to learn about homosexuality, trans, etc. beliefs and practices, that is fine, but it should ultimately be up to them, the government shouldn't be able to force the decision on that. Imagine if they forced the decision that parents could not teach about sexuality at all, that wouldn't be too popular

south jungle
# ebon perch Well my belief of those topics comes from the idea that I believe as Americans w...

Quoting the Florida Constitution (where I currently live): "The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require."

All things with educational value should be taught at schools to the fullest extent possible. Again, the role of the educator is to provide us with a full set of facts and to allow us to come to our own conclusions. It is a public service for the benefit of society. Our failure to teach kids how to pay taxes and how to defend themselves is absolutely harmful to them. I suppose that at some point we need to make value decisions on what makes the curriculum and what doesn't. I don't presume to be smart enough to make that decision alone.

south jungle
#

If you earnestly believe that the real purpose of school is to pass tests and get As then you're lying to yourself.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch Sex ed as a kid brought me to having more sex. I had no idea what is was before ...

Freedom of speech is limited in school so that learning can occur.

I would love it if taxes and finances were taught in high school. It's another area where parents tend to woefully fail their children.

They are subject to their parents rules, within reason. Where reason lies can depend on many factors. For example, not vaccinating your children is a pretty clear violation of your child's rights. You are making a decision for them that endangers their lives based on a feeling and something you heard. It's as negligent as the people who force their kids to drink silver.

And as you said parents have the responsibility of taking care of their kids and their ignorance is not an excuse for negligence.

ebon perch
# south jungle Quoting the Florida Constitution (where I currently live): "The education of chi...

Ok, so if we expand school to include life skills, I feel things such as farming, taxes, mechanic/repair classes, etc. would be of way more value tot he individual as those actually require technical know-how, as opposed to something almost every adult knows and parents could easily teach to their kids or not. This just seems more of a decision then on what aspects of life we put more value on, kids sexuality or other important skills.

If you earnestly believe that the real purpose of school is to pass tests and get As then you're lying to yourself.
Well that's not what I said, I said it is to prepare you for future schooling, giving you the resources to pass future courses and future jobs, something sexuality, religion, etc. will not do.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice Freedom of speech is limited in school so that learning can occur. I would lov...

Yes I agree, purposefully teaching your kids something harmful, is bad, deciding not to teach your kids something, can also be bad. That doesn't make it the governments responsibility to teach them. Involving the government in raising your children is a choice you can make, but then that is going to shift with what the government wants to teach. I don't find that a very safe or secure system. Not teaching your kid(s) about STDs, reproduction, etc. is not the same as refusing to vaccinate kids.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch Yes I agree, purposefully teaching your kids something harmful, is bad, deciding...

People should either send their kids to public school or homeschool them. The curriculum for public school is designed to be for everyone, not just for your kid. And individual parents should not have a say in that curriculum or be able to opt their kids out of specific classes outside of electives. You either get the public education or you take it upon yourself.

Billy isn't going to be in health class because his parents don't want him to learn about sex.

Jenny isn't allowed in biology because her parents don't believe in evolution.

And Tony isn't allowed in any classroom with a globe because his parents are flat earthers.

Jill wasn't going to be allowed near any vaccinated child because her parents are afraid of shedding, but she died of polio over the summer so we don't have to worry about it.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice People should either send their kids to public school or homeschool them. The cu...

Ok, so parents who are forced to work and can't homeschool their kids are requried to have their kids subject to whatever the school and governemnt decides to teach? Would you feel the same if they requried everyone to learn about Christianity and no other religion? I mean, if you don't like it you could just home school your children. Speaking of that, most states require your children to follow the general curriculum required in public schools as well when you homeschool them. Sex ed, should be an elective, biology should be a core class. You are entierly missing my point. It's not about your beliefs, it's about what should be taught to kids and what shouldn't in a classroom. School is to prepare them for future schooling and a basic education so they can function in their jobs, such as math, writing, speaking, and a level of understanding of history and science, not teach them philisophical principles and subjective belief systems, as well as things they aren't even supposed to be doing at their age. Should they also teach kids how to safely drink alcohol, rather than just the dangers?

south jungle
frigid flume
#

I think it’s less about knowing how to do it and more about appreciating how hard it is.

south jungle
frigid flume
#

Maybe repair classes are more valuable

rigid pumice
# ebon perch Ok, so parents who are forced to work and can't homeschool their kids are requri...

I would absolutely love a world religions class in every high school. No, you can't teach a single religion as true in a public school for obvious reasons. That would be a lawsuit, and it would win.

There isn't really any basis for challenging sex ed as a required class from a legal perspective though.

But yes. If you choose a public education your kid gets the public education. If you don't like what is being taught run for school board and try to make changes. But the reason most of these things are part of our education system is because it's what most parents want. We have very vocal minorities who want total control over every aspect of their children's lives.

Have you seen some of the bills related to education being proposed in the US lately?

Obviously the famous don't say gay legislation in Florida that is now mostly dead because the legislature was so incompetent they worded it in such a way that any book that used pronouns (all of them) would not be allowed in classrooms.

Louisiana passed a law mandating the 10 Commandments be posted I'm every classroom.

Oklahoma proposed a bill that would make teachers personally liable for a 10k fine if they teach anything “that promotes positions in the classroom or any function of the public school that is in opposition to closely held religious beliefs of students.” How could that possibly backfire.

#

But no government involvement in education right?

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
# south jungle What LGBT topics are you thinking about when you bring up the school curriculum?...

there is an obvious disconnect between us about how much the LGBT community is violating societal norms compared to the rest of society. I doubt I'm alone in assuming this comes from your consumption of sensationalized media. Has bathroom sexual assault actually increased because of the presence of more transgender women in bathrooms? There are multiple effects that must be weighed. If the objective was to eliminate sexual assault in the bathroom the conversation should really hinge around single-occupancy bathrooms and panic alarms.
Yes hence why I did propose the idea of accepting other solutions if they work, the traditional solution in the beggining was to seperate the bathrooms because we didnt have the technology of "panic alarms" since like the last few decades

wintry zodiac
# south jungle What LGBT topics are you thinking about when you bring up the school curriculum?...

Do you think parents should be able to opt out of other parts of the school curriculum? Could I decide that my child shouldn't learn algebra and force the school system to cater to my child in math class? If not, what is the meaningful difference?
Algebra and other subjects are core subjects, they are the reason why kids go to school in the first place. LGBTQ shouldnt be part of the school curriculum because it doesnt teach the same morals and values as many parents do, the core subjects really dont and if all parents were to for some reason collect together and abandon algebra saying they dont want it taught, then it should be respected but its an exaggerated scenario and not really something that would happen. Kids in general may be confused and distressed because they would be questioning their identity once they are in school and being taught LGBTQ.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle "Indoctrination of LGBTQ views... may lead the kid into ... adopting LGBTQ lifes...

Sure, there could be a god. It may not be your god. Perhaps God is transgender and these parents are condemning their children to burn in hell. We separate church and state because there are many churches and many people who disagree even within the same church.
Parents also have a moral duty to allow their children to develop and express their own identity
Yes but we dont teach religious morals in the schools and we shouldnt teach LGBTQ topics/morals and values in school either. I was bringing up a god because its most likely what these individuals believe in (obviously god isnt transgender, if you think theres a chance then you have a huge misunderstanding of what god is). Parents do not have a moral duty to allow their children to be taught and/or develop their identity or sexuality, because it goes against pretty much most of the worlds beliefs (and approximately 68%+ of the US's religious population). They have a right in choosing what their child should be taught so obviously if a parent wants to choose to teach their child about the LGBTQ and its morals and values then sure go ahead and no one is stopping you, however this shouldnt be taught in general in school and school should remain its core subjects and what they were initially meant for.

If you speak to an LGBT person you will quickly come to understand that their mental health has been strongly impacted by their parents' tolerance or intolerance of their identity.
Not just mental health, many children would question their identity and its not just their parents. Many parents do not want their kids to question their identity or become a part of the LGBTQ community, its kind of simple but complex.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle "Indoctrination of LGBTQ views... may lead the kid into ... adopting LGBTQ lifes...

This is patently false. Homosexuality has been widely practiced, acknowledged, and argued over culturally worldwide throughout history. Gender was a complex idea in pre-colonial America. Eunuchs are believed to have been functionally a third gender in some cultures. The fact that LGBT issues are a prevalent political issue today does not suggest that they did not affect society as a whole in the past.
Homosexuality was never "widely" practiced, they acknoledged its existence but never was widely practiced. It was rare and mostly discriminated and executed for. They did affect society but not anywhere near as they do now, obviously LGBTQ people existed (not members but gay lesbian etc) but were exceptionally rare and werent "widely" practiced as its a huge exaggeration of what actually happend in the past.

wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice Parents do not own their children. They don't get to decide whether they are gay...

Parents dont get to decide if their child is gay or straight, however they get to decide wether their child is going to be taught these subjects because environmental aspects heavily affect the identity of the child. Hence why I said its pretty much of a decision wether someone is gay or not (still my opinion), obviously whether someone is gay depends on who they are sexually attrected to, but they dont want their child to be sexually attracted to their own gender and want their child to be traditional. To remain a child traditional they should be taught traditional morals and values (at home) and shouldnt be taught LGBTQ morals and beliefs. If the child becomes gay anyway then the parents dont have any other choice but to respect that but they do have a right to choose what their child learns and influence their identity. BRB I got school like rn

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice Parents do not own their children. They don't get to decide whether they are gay...

You can name a billion good family relationships that came from these kind beliefs and moral teachings. In fact almost everyone before the 2000s was taught with similar beliefs and morals and turned out fine. It’s not linked to poor family relation ships just because a majority of poor relationships come from these kind of beliefs, the poor family relationships do not come from the topic whether their child is gay or straight but other issues like wether the parents support their education or career financially or other kinds of issues. LGBTQ may also be the leading reason of why a lot of traditional families are struggling because a individual of that family was somehow taught different beliefs and morals therefore disagreeing with their parents and the rest of the family

#

I’m in car rn I will talk after school

#

Before I do go, I have a question. In what world is thinking you are of some different gender that typically doesn’t exist or physically impossible for you to be, many do identify as a cat that’s reality but them thinking they are a cat of some sort is not reality. In reality it’s made up in their mind isn’t it?

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac Before I do go, I have a question. In what world is thinking you are of some dif...

Everything we feel is made up in our minds. There is nothing about gender that is obvious. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man or women. And even if I did, there's nothing ti say that feelings corresponds with someone else's feelings even if we express it identically.

I find it fascinating that so many people have such strong senses of that seemingly indescribable feeling.

But most people certainly seem to. I have never had any issue with myself and the male stereotypes that were thrust upon me throughout my life. Many I associate with willingly, others I'm indifferent about. Most of it just seems silly to me though.

If people want to make up categories that blend different characteristics together as unique who cares? You know that's all it is right? It's a spectrum, like color. If masculine is yellow and feminine is red, there is an infinite number of shades one can make by combining them in different proportions. Add in different amounts of white and black (related to neither or both masculine and feminine) and you can get infinitely more shades.

The fact that we never put labels on them previously doesn't mean that there were not infinite ways a person could express their unique gender identity as long as we have had society.

As for the cat thing. If we ever see it happening in meaningful numbers we can address is as a society. If you can imagine something and it is possible, someone somewhere will do it. Until then, if it is actually happening sincerely and they arent just messing with the adults around them like kids love to do, I'll leave it to the parents and doctors to decide the best course of action.

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac You can name a billion good family relationships that came from these kind belie...

You have that way wrong. The family isn't struggling because someone taught their kid about being gay. That's not how it works. Have you been attracted to some girls and not to others? Can you explain to me why you chose to be attracted to the ones you were attracted to, and how you willed those attractions to change?

No, in that scenario the kid is struggling because their family made them feel ashamed for being gay and maybe kicked them out the moment they came out and went against their religion. When if they had simply been loving and supporting there would be no struggle for anyone.

Anyone who is willing to abandon their child because of their religion should be deemed an unfit parent.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice You have that way wrong. The family isn't struggling because someone taught thei...

The notion that only religious people are "anti-gay" or whatever term you want to ascribe to them is a little misleading. I have a good friend who is a hardcore atheist, me and him debate about religion almost daily, but even he agrees with me on the majority of homosexuality and trasngenderism. It's not uniquely religious.

I do agree though, that just because your child decides to act gay, doesn't mean you should disown them, scream at them, etc. You should try to help them, but I think we'd probably disagree there since I'm assuming you view it as a natural attraction?

ebon perch
# south jungle This is a good point. I'm inclined to reject the idea that farming and repair cl...

I mean, with farming skills, you'd never need to go to the store for food, you could become self-sufficent, in case of emergencies, you'd always be able to support you, your families, your community, etc. Repair classes are pretty similar, except even more useful for more people, as almost everyone has a vehicle, they break down over time, and instead of spending money to get someone to fix something, you could purchase the parts yourself and fix it, most things on vehicles aren't hard to fix, until now at least with them adding a ton of electrical parts just decreasing the reliability of the vehicles (old vehicles if something went wrong, you could tell exactly what was wrong, now there's about 500 different possibilities ranging from cheap and/or quick to expensive and/or time consuming. If things ever break that you need fixed, you could handle it, save money.

rigid pumice
ebon perch
# south jungle "Should they also teach kids how to safely drink alcohol, rather than just the d...

I guess my concern with this whole issue partly comes from the fact that, at least where I live, there is a lot of material to cover in the core classes, that I don't see any way to fit in most of these other skills or information into curriculums without taking away from these important classes. Also just curious, because I did mention earlier, I'd be more inclined to accept sex-ed in high-school, probably sophmore-junior year, how early do you think that should be taught in schools?

rigid pumice
ebon perch
#

I guess part of my thing too is, that I know how I would be as a parent. I would make sure to teach my kids all this stuff, and it is just hard for me to understand how parents couldn't teach their kids this information. I'ma definitely have to do some thinking on this, because I gotta figure out exactly how the line between your raising your child vs governemnt control on your choices in raising your child should be drawn.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch The notion that only religious people are "anti-gay" or whatever term you want t...

I don't know if you saw my question before, but correct I don't frame it that way. They aren't "acting gay" they are gay. It isn't a choice. I can't explain to you why I was attracted to my wife over other women. I just was. Do you think you choose your individual attractions and can turn them on or off at will?

It's not just religious people but it is overwhelmingly religious people. By a hefty margin. There are a lot of weird atheists out there. Because all it takes is to not believe in any God. Whatever other opinions they have can be completely different from one another.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice I don't know if you saw my question before, but correct I don't frame it that wa...

Do you think you choose your individual attractions and can turn them on or off at will?
Well no, I don't think we choose them or turn them on/off. I think everyone of a biological sex is naturally attracted to members of the other biological sex (although we can have certain attractions to features such as hair color, skin tone, height, weight, etc.), because that is how animals reproduce, it actually lines up with more of an atheistic viewpoint I believe as religions could easily teach against the natural order of reproduction. My belief is that people are led to believe they are "gay" whether they realize it or not by culture and possibly even trauma throughout their life. I could be wrong on that, because I've never really dove to deep into studying it, but just from a logical perspective, from the knowledge I have, it makes the most sense to me.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch The notion that only religious people are "anti-gay" or whatever term you want t...

There's some interesting sociological studies that posit being gay could be genetic and an evolutionary advantage. For most of human history people died a lot. Disease, infected scrapes, war, hunger. It was helpful to have couples in villages that could not have children of their own and were capable of taking in orphans.

I don't know how much evidence there is behind that but I found it interesting.

rigid pumice
ebon perch
# rigid pumice It is extremely illogical that anyone who was actually attracted to the opposite...

I mean, people believe Jesus' disciples who were murdered for their claims of seeing Jesus risen from the dead would die for something they knew the be false.

As for the sheep, if you brainwash someone enough, or put societal pressures on them enough, or just show something everywhere, the fad is bound to gain traction. (Lastly, you think comparing humans to other mammals, not to mention a tiny subset is accurate? Not to mention, I have looked into that, most of what I have seen is just utter speculation.)

#

I believe some of them would choose to die for it, because they probably do truly believe they are homosexual. But I haven't seen any science to support that as a natural order of humans.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice There's some interesting sociological studies that posit being gay could be gene...

Interesting, I'll probably look into that. Seems hard to believe though that an evolutionary advantage would be to not reproduce? Their genes (I assume if sexuality is controlled by evolution there is a gene or genes controlling it) that make them homosexual would never get passed on, because they're homosexual. Not to mention, why would you need a couple that can't have children to adopt children any more than a couple that could have children adopt in extra children? Not to say it isn't possible, but the reasoning behind it seems a bit sketchy.

rigid pumice
# ebon perch Interesting, I'll probably look into that. Seems hard to believe though that an ...

As far as I know there is no gay gene, it could have been more of a way that societies of the past integrated gay couples effectively. It's been awhile since I read about that.

Because we have plenty of evidence that there have always been gay people, for whatever reason.

Certain things about human brains we have yet to be able to explain. Sexual attraction and even general interests being among them.

And to address the idea that having gay members of a species is not in line with evolution is not true at all. There are lots of anomalies. Even if you considered it a detriment, and i suppose it is if the goal is reproduction, there are lots of things that can happen to people that affect their ability to reproduce. People are infertile sometimes, does that mean they shouldn't be able to live their lives in peace.

#

We didn't even know what the appendix did until 2007. We are a long way from fully understanding the brain.

ebon perch
# rigid pumice As far as I know there is no gay gene, it could have been more of a way that soc...

If there is no "gay gene" or multiple genese would be more likely, then I'm curious on where it comes from, if not just a societally made phenomenon. From my religious view, it comes from Satan preverting what is good and natural into things that are unnatural, from science, so far at least, there seems to be no explanation.

Yea, humans have had homosexual encounters likely as long as we have existed in societies.

I mean, if being gay though causes you to not reproduce, hwo else is that gene passed on other than some other person randomly mutating the same exact mutation? If it truly is a genetic reason for homosexuality, then sure, it is fine, but from what we see so far, there is very little actual coorelation between genetic makeup and sexuality. I don't think anyone shouldn't be able to live their lives in peace, and if they want homosexual relationships, they're more than able to do so, but I don't think it should be taught to kids who I beleive naturally don't tend towards that.

rigid pumice
radiant trout
# ebon perch Ok, so parents who are forced to work and can't homeschool their kids are requri...

School is to prepare them for future schooling and a basic education so they can function in their jobs,
So you don't believe having a basic understanding of society and how people in that society function is required to grow towards being a normal human adult and properly function in society?

such as math, writing, speaking, and a level of understanding of history and science, not teach them philisophical principles and subjective belief systems, as well as things they aren't even supposed to be doing at their age.
What things are taught that they aren't supposed to be doing? And why are they not supposed to be doing that?

radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac > Sure, there could be a god. It may not be your god. Perhaps God is transgender...

Yes but we dont teach religious morals in the schools
Except we do

obviously god isnt transgender, if you think theres a chance then you have a huge misunderstanding of what god is
Obviously God is agender, having no gender, meaning he is LGBT

Parents do not have a moral duty to allow their children to be taught and/or develop their identity or sexuality, because it goes against pretty much most of the worlds beliefs
"Most of the worlds beliefs". Where do you get this ''fact'' from, because that is about opposite of how I experience the world. Yes, most people are not LGBT themselves, but there is a very small minority that is actually AGAINST LGBT people. And pretty much everyone, at least where I live, believes that it is important to teach children about boundaries, about society and about that not all people are the same.

They have a right in choosing what their child should be taught
Yes you can homeschool, but that'll go at the cost of your kids education.

so obviously if a parent wants to choose to teach their child about the LGBTQ and its morals and values
You mean if they want to teach their kids to discriminate against other people that happen to not hold the same beliefs as them?

radiant trout
#

Is USA and Canada really that conservative?

#

Always thought usa said they were the develop ones

radiant trout
#

Being gay is not a choice

#

And being that radical about it really upsets me

#

It's the exact rhethoruc that results in me getting beat up if I walk around in public

ebon perch
# radiant trout > School is to prepare them for future schooling and a basic education so they c...

So you don't believe having a basic understanding of society and how people in that society function is required to grow towards being a normal human adult and properly function in society?
Well that's not what I believe the purpose of school is for. It is to provide education needed to understand material needed for future jobs and continued education. Religion isn't needed to know how to be an accountant, farm, etc. Sexuality isn't either. Also a basic understanding of society is different from learning about sex and sexuality, in the sense of learning about government, voting, how to start a business, etc.

What things are taught that they aren't supposed to be doing? And why are they not supposed to be doing that?
Sex.. That was the topic we were talking about, sex ed. Kids in school are not at the legal age of consent, they are not legally allowed to have sex. I think it is clear why they aren't supposed to have sex.

ebon perch
ebon perch
ebon perch
wintry zodiac
#

Also a normal couple can do the same thing, you don’t need gay people

#

Being gay is never intended in biology, because there is male and female and they are meant to reproduce. They aren’t designed for male and males to have sex

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
# ebon perch > So you don't believe having a basic understanding of society and how people in...

Well that's not what I believe the purpose of school is for. It is to provide education needed to understand material needed for future jobs and continued education. Religion isn't needed to know how to be an accountant, farm, etc. Sexuality isn't either. Also a basic understanding of society is different from learning about sex and sexuality, in the sense of learning about government, voting, how to start a business, etc.

Sure, you can hold that position, that's fine. But in that case we should limit school to having only exact sciences and maybe economics. As any "alpha" or "gamma" science is not required to do your job either. Don't need to know anything about history to be an accountant or a farmer. Don't need to do any sports to be an accountant or farmer. Don't need to know anything about geography etc..

radiant trout
# ebon perch > So you don't believe having a basic understanding of society and how people in...

Sex.. That was the topic we were talking about, sex ed. Kids in school are not at the legal age of consent, they are not legally allowed to have sex. I think it is clear why they aren't supposed to have sex.
No its not clear to me at all, that's why I am asking. I have been brought up with a very different set of morals and values to yours, therefore this is not at all obvious to me. The legal age of consent here is 16, meaning kids in school do have sex at a legal age. Furthermore, I want my kids to know that IF they are going to have sex, they will do it safe. That they can talk about it if somethings wrong. That they learn what is wrong and right with regards to having sex and that also includes teaching that some people only like girls, some people only like boys, some people like both and some people like neither. Teaching that its not okay to force yourself onto somebody. Teaching what rape is etc. etc.

radiant trout
radiant trout
#

You must be kidding

#

You must be on some acid to actually think that

#

i can't

clever quest
#

It's definitely not scientific, but there is a logical train of thought there. Albeit one that ignores some of the information.

#

and is based on a very religious perspective.

radiant trout
#

Nah man this makes me so fucking angry

#

If he says being gay is a choice

#

that means he can CHOOSE to be attracted to men anytime onw

#

he jsut has to want it

#

Dan, you think you can be attracted to men?

#

You like men don't you?

#

Its because its just a choice

#

If you want, you can just choose to be gay man

#

There is 0 logic in there

#

there is nothing scientific about it

#

actually science points in the exact opposite direction

#

its harmful rhetoric

#

Do you think I would have CHOSEN to be LGBT if I actually had a choice?

#

Don't you think my life would be much easier if I were just straight like most people?

#

Do you think I do it on purpose?

#

You think I get a kink out of being shamed?

#

You think I get a kink out of being verbally and physically abused?

#

BY THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM ITS A CHOICE

#

You just made it very personal here dan

clever quest
#

Yeah, I mean it's clearly not an argument based on evidence. But if literally the only information you have is that it's either the Christian god or evolution based on reproduction that is determining who everyone is, I can see how someone would draw that conclusion. The problem really is the choice to be certain of anything based on so little information.

radiant trout
#

Yeah, if you choose to be ignorant it can be a valid conclusion based on the information you have

#

but that is anti-scientific method of approaching something

#

So then to have the audacity to claim its scientific

clever quest
radiant trout
#

Holy shit whats next

#

Saying being black is a choice and thats its scientific that they are lesser of people than white ones?

#

We gonna bring back slavery?

#

We gonna opress women while we're at it?

#

its all scientific if you base it on the very limited set of information im going to present you

#

And ignore literally everything else

clever quest
radiant trout
# ebon perch That's your opinion. My opinion isn't really radical, it is more along the lines...

  • Being gay is something that you are born with. No scientific evidence points towards it being a learned behaviour, let alone it being an active choice.

  • Your opinion IS radical as it goes into all the status quo we have for the topic within the scientific community. What you believe directly contradicts the best evidence and explanations we have, therefore it is a radical view on the topic.

  • But saying that gay people choose to be homosexual is giving them agency over their sexuality and therefore responsibility. This is what some people, maybe not you, use as their justification of abusing people that do not believe in their values. "They chose this themselves, therefore its their own fault" kinda rhetoric. And yes that is dangerous. I can't explain to you the amount of times I have been abused in my life for just existing.

  • "It is not the natural attraction of humans. " -> Except for everything in science points towards the fact that it actually IS a naturally occuring sexual preference that happens in humans. And even in other animals that don't even have a sense of culture or learn culturally, which makes it even more compelling that it is not a choice.

radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac Using animals as morals is bad, because cannibalism is also present in many many...

and we don’t eat other humans do we?
We used to untill not so long ago. That's just what you do when you have to survive. Only from the moment that food scarcity was not really a thing for most people did we start view it as something bad. Until the late middle-ages it was widespread behaviour. If you are hungry and your neighbor passes away from starvation, you can either eat him or starve yourself too. Most people opted for option 1.

radiant trout
# wintry zodiac Using animals as morals is bad, because cannibalism is also present in many many...

And it’s morally wrong not like we can’t
Why IS it morally wrong?

Using animals as our morals is totally wrong
Why is this wrong

biology isn’t designed for homosexuality
Biology isn't designed in the first place.

and most of these homosexual animals are just horny they don’t care
Says who? How do you know?

There is a big pattern in all of your statements, and that is that you try to convey your opinion as a fact. All of the above quoted statements are not facts, yet you act like they are. If you want to have a proper discussion, it would be respectable if 1) You convey your ideas as opinions rather than facts, for example by saying "I believe it to me morally wrong" instead of saying "It is morally wrong" and 2) to explain WHY you hold those beliefs, instead of leaving other people guessing why. For example ''I believe this to be morally wrong because that is what my bible teaches me''. The most important part of these discussions are the motivation and explanation of why you think something, and not the belief you hold itself.

This is in the first place a phillosophy topic, with a purpose of letting people think. Your method of rethoric is not making you think about what you believe, it is merely parroting something that you heard yourself from someone else. Try to elaborate on your statemetns. Why do you believe it. Why is the statement justified. Are there other views that combat this etc.

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac I’ve explained why using animals as morals is wrong, they do very bad things tha...

But to me thats not a proper explanation. Humans also do bad things all the time. Now I am not religious, so I don't hold the same values as you do. To me, a human is an animal just like any other animal. Hence I am asking you to elaborate on why you believe that we shouldnt look at animals. But the explanation you give is basically just saying ''because that is how it is'' which is not an actual explanation

#

I want to understand your viewpoint

#

not just hear your viewpoint

#

I hope that makes sense

radiant trout
#

And your response is: if 2 men have sex they cant bear children

#

While that's correct in itself, it does not explain why it therfore is biologically unfavourable

#

All you do is argue from your underbelly, whereas I am actually giving you the information that leads to the opposite conclusion

#

I mean i can make a biology lesson here and explain all the concepts 1 by 1, but i assume you can use google too

#

The short, much oversimplified version of the answer is: There is more to survival of a species than reproduction of individuals.

#

For example, if I am unable to reproduce, but I am able to increase the reproductive success of my direct familiy, e.g. brothers, sisters etc, that is still beneficial for spreading my genes

#

And ultimately for the survival of the whole population

#

So if I am gay and I don't spent wasted time and energy on reproduction but rather use my time and energy to benefit people around me resulting in increasing their reproductive success, then it is a biological advantage.

#

The problem is you view it from the perspective of an individual person, however that's not how the world works

#

Survival is not about individuals

#

It is about groups of animals

#

But I unfortunately doubt that you will ever recieve a proper biology education due to your religious beliefs

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

What a gay person can do, also a straight person can do but better sort of because the straight person can actually reproduce

radiant trout
#

Im not saying I can't support the view

#

Its just that you don't give me any reason to understand why you believe what you believe

#

its all so arbitrary

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

How many times do i have to ask before i get an answer

wintry zodiac
#

Also

#

Basically shortened out it’s a violation of human dignity, respect for human life is needed, social and psychological impact, ethical considerations (consent) and other

#

Brb school

radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac Brb school

it’s a violation of human dignity, respect for human life is needed, social and psychological impact, ethical considerations (consent) and other

But ALL of the above arguments can be made for other organisms as well. What about humans makes them so different that this only counts for them but not for example for pigs, cows, chickens, horses, goats etc?

radiant trout
#

Im not saying I am in favor of cannibalism. I'm just trying to figure out what your motivation is for believing this stuff other than ''because this is what i believe''

#

like have you ever thought deeply about your beliefs and how you can justify them for yourself

#

or are you just parroting someone else, e.g. the bible, your father, your spiritual leader or whatever

#

Because so far, pretty much all your motivation is along the lines of: "because that's how it is"

radiant trout
#

You should then still show why that is the case

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

They don’t

radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
#

Because most animals dont process the same morals as us, and using their morals to justify our things is not right because many of the animals actions are wrong

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Again, you don't have the right not to be uncomfortable

#

Life is uncomfortable

wintry zodiac
#

And culture ^

radiant trout
#

So then, why is eating a human wrong, but eating a pig okay?

#

its both murder

#

Should be morally wrong according to your god no?

wintry zodiac
#

I’m confused on what exactly you are trying to get out of me

radiant trout
#

I am asking for explanatoins, not examples

#

i want to know WHY you believe this

#

what your mental motivation is for saying this

#

And saying that ''eating your brother is wrong'' is not an argument in favor of saying that its morally wrong because thats the statement you already made. Its not an explanation, its just an example

#

I want an explanation

#

I want: "Eating your brother is morally wrong because of reason X, Y and Z''

#

I want you to think about and challenge your beliefs

#

WHY do you believe what you believe

#

For example: Suppose there is no god, would it be still morally wrong to eat your brother?

#

If your answer is yes, that means your morality does not stem from your religion. If the answer is no, that means your morality is based on your religion

#

You understand the difference?

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Should be morally wrong according to your god no?

Divine permission, also humans are a special creation superior to other animals, some animals are actually prohibited from consumption, also nutritional necessity unlike eating the same of your kind and it’s also a sin in most religions to do that, and other cultural practices and symbolism’s etc

radiant trout
#

But if your morality is based off of your religion, you shouldn't portray it as a fact. You shouldnt say ""eating your brothers is wrong'', but rather say "I believe that eating your brothers is wrong", because one is factual and one is an opinion

#

Do you know the difference btween a fact and opinion?

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac Divine permission, also humans are a special creation superior to other animals,...

Okay so now its clear to me where your views come from. I compeltely disagree with all of it. Now what? Who is right? Which morals are now supposed to be upheld, yours or mine?

You complain that I somehow try to force my morals upon you, but if you claim that your morals stem from the bible and you want me to live according to what is correct according to the bible, then you are also forcing your morals onto me right?

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Okay so now its clear to me where your views come from. I compeltely disagree wi...

I’m not Christian and I won’t stop you with disagreeing with the morals religion typically gives, however I think there are some things that typically I would stop you from doing like eating another human being that is alive. Maybe not physically right here right now where I am but if I’m close to you I’d attempt that to stop. However I don’t see anything wrong with disagreeing with me I didn’t say that I viewed that as wrong did I?

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

I simply believe it’s not ok to be gay but I don’t care if u as an individual are and won’t do anything about it

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
#

Also brb real quick gotta pick up my brother

#

Anyway I’m in car now

#

I think I understand now hold up

wintry zodiac
#

I’ve also listed the morals and beliefs that lgbtq is trying to force upon us

#

Also I do have a question, doesn’t lgbtq negatively impact the society and the future of society by lowering all in all birth rates and I feel making many more people “more weaker”, obviously it’s worded poorly however I feel like lgbtq is weakining men as a whole for example

radiant trout
#

isnt that hypocritical?

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
# wintry zodiac I can’t do anything about you having different moral beliefs, who is right is ty...

I can’t do anything about you having different moral beliefs
Fully agreed

who is right is typically not an answerable question because we hold different morals
Fully agreed

however there are a majority of moral beliefs that are held by everyone and therefore should be ( in my opinion ) also upheld
Why? Do you believe the majority is always right? What if the majority decides that cannibalism is now okay. Does that change your view on the morility of cannibalism.

My point here is that who agrees with certain moral values is irrelevant to the discussion of what the moral values themselves are and how they should be upheld.

radiant trout
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

When you say you are anti-lgbt, what do you consider LGBT to be?

wintry zodiac
#

If cannibalism somehow is ok by the majority ( and I meant huge majority in general) then there will be a law to uphold the allowance of cannibalism

radiant trout
#

because I have a feeling we see it very differently, your lgbt is not the same as my lgbt

#

if that makes sense

radiant trout
#

Morals do not stem from the law, but rather the reverse. Law stems from the morals we hold as a society

#

Its not illegal to be gay, therefore most people apparently believe that having the freedom to express yourself is morally more important then them thinking being gay is immoral

#

do you see what im getting at?

#

Your view is not the ''normal'' view

#

Its a minority view

#

just like my view is a minority view

#

most people are somewhere inbetween

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

They don't neccesarily like lgbt, but they accept that lgbt people are people too with rights that should be protected

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

You can't say gay people don't exist

#

Because it is a fact that they do

#

You can say you think its wrong to be gay

#

thats a totally valid position

#

The problem is you keep mixing up the two

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

You misrepresent your opinion as a fact, and misrepresent facts as an opinion

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

there is no counter evidence

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Because then what you are actually meaning is : ''you are not gay, you are only acting gay''

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

You said being gay is a choice

#

Anyway, im not having this discussion with you again

#

I would suggest you read some literature on the topic

#

Instead of religious texts

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

And try to understand the perspective of other people

#

Instead of only wanting to force your belief onto others

radiant trout
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

A pig is a fish' but you just refuse to accept that

#

does that statement make sense to yoU:?

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Because you keep saying: ''in my opinion gender is based off of sex'' but thats not what gender is

#

you make up your own definition of gender thats different from anyone else, and then make a conclusion based on your own definition

#

It makes no sense

#

But you are too misinformed/undereducated to actually understand

#

and it hurts me to watch that

#

But i cant paint the picture in a nicer way than that

#

Anyway

#

im outa here

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

It’s not a made up definition, if anything then your definition of gender is technically made up because it has only been recently added

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Lmao

#

Sure buddy

wintry zodiac
#

😂

wintry zodiac
#

Brb

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac Gender has only recently included the idea of there being more than 2, the tradi...

That's not true at all. Plenty of past and long standing cultures have additional and distinct genders in society that have different expected roles.

Plus despite not creating the categories previously its well estaished that not everyone abides by all gender norms outside of authoritarian societies. You could make up a title for someone who has a penis, likes wearing dresses, is a bodybuilder, and is indifferent towards being referred to as a man or woman.

Just because you don't acknowledge that as a distinct form of gender expression doesn't change the fact that it absolutely is and if people feel the need to label it they can.

radiant trout
#

If you say, back in ancient Egypt there were different genders, he will just say that gender is the same as sex and then deny that it could be the case

#

There is no point in arguing if there is not even a baseline understanding of the topic that everyone agrees with

#

At this point its just a semantics discussion

wintry zodiac
# rigid pumice That's not true at all. Plenty of past and long standing cultures have additiona...

Compared to the general population, sure there have obviously been cases of cultures adding distrinct genders however "plenty" might be an exaggeration. However these extra genders are linked to the gender definition of the individual. LGBTQ perspectives on gender view it as a spectrum, recognizing non-binary, genderqueer, and fluid identities, emphasizing self-identification based on personal experience, supporting transgender identities and transitions, and promoting inclusive practices like respecting chosen pronouns and creating gender-affirming spaces. Traditional perspectives often see gender as a fixed binary determined by biological sex, with set roles and expectations based on this binary understanding. Traditional perspectives generally adhere to a binary view of gender, recognizing only male and female identities based on biological sex. These views typically emphasize distinct roles and expectations for men and women, rooted in cultural, religious, and societal norms.

Its not a fact that there are more than 2 genders, of course you may perceive it to be one because of your definition of gender and how you view it, thats the point im trying to make. You cant ignore that there are billions of people who hold this traditional view across the world, and just because they dont agree on the same definition of gender and view on the concept of gender then you cant say that we are simply wrong.

radiant trout
#

We disagree on the definition of a word, which makes all further discussion pointless

radiant trout
#

We disagree on the definition of the word gender to begin with

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

So any discussion past ''what even does gender mean'' is pointless if we cannot even agree on that part

wintry zodiac
#

Because you have a different definition of gender doesnt mean that im wrong

radiant trout
#

thats not what im saying

wintry zodiac
#

Im trying to finish the discussion of whether there is more than 2 genders or not by simply stating the facts that there are, which is that we hold different views and definitions on gender and that we simply cannot agree whether there is more than 2 genders or not because we have different views and definitions. However despite you having a different view or definition doesnt make me and billions of others wrong.

#

Basically my entire point

rigid pumice
# wintry zodiac Compared to the general population, sure there have obviously been cases of cult...

When the entire world believed the earth was flat, did it make it true?

The way that we treated men and women traditionally makes sense because a high percentage of women died in child birth and were required to create replacement humans.

It made sense to attempt to keep them safe, prevent them from doing dangerous jobs or fighting in wars. Men were expendable.

But those factors are no longer true and so decisions made based on those previous factors should be reassessed.

wintry zodiac
rigid pumice
#

Or at least not enforced.

radiant trout
#

We can name it ''flurburgerlurg'' instead of gender

#

And say there are more flurburgerlurgs than 2

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
#

Not entirely

radiant trout
#

There is no denying that there are people that fall outside of the spectrum of the 2 main genders

#

Then you say; okay but I don't agree that we call that gender becauset to me gender means something else

#

So then we have a semantic discussion ?

#

We are merely disagreeing over the definition of the word gender

wintry zodiac
#

Because we started off with out opinions on the amount of genders there were but realized that we had different definitions for gender which led to making the conversation pointless and me trying my best to point out that we simply cannot agree on anything because of that

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

I said we can also call it something else

#

like flurburgerlurg

#

it doesn't matter what its called

#

fact is that some people don't feel comfortable expressing themselves as either male or female

#

or do you also disagree on that?

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

what does it matter how its called?

#

i try to get away from the semantics

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

You understand what we mean when we talk about gender

#

so what does it matter that your definition of gender is different

#

Its about the information that we are trying to convey, not about the definition of the word

#

You make it only about the definition itself

#

which is pointless

#

Its like saying, i dont agree giraffes are real because i call a giraffe a long-necked horse

#

But it doesnt matter how i call a girafee

#

Fact is that giraffes still exist, regardless of my definition of a giraffe

#

So then if you don't want to call it gender, how would you name the phenomenon of personal expression that people use that falls outside of the binary spectrum of male and female?

wintry zodiac
#

Ok so what do you propose we talk about in the gender topic then? Or rahter "flurburgerlurg"

radiant trout
#

Because then we just use that and we can continue an actual discussion

wintry zodiac
#

However

#

the problem is that

radiant trout
#

Look, we just use the cambridge dictionary definition of the word gender. You disagree and say you have your own definition of the word, and according to your definition, what we claim about gender is false

#

So we stop the bs, call the phenomenon whatever we want to call it, and can continue from there

wintry zodiac
#

Because we have different definitions on gender, trying to seperate them would therefore remove the total existence of the word gender because we dont recognize the existence of the other gender definition if you know what I mean

radiant trout
#

The fact is that there are people that exist that are members of a society that share qualities of behaviour that society associates with a certain identity

#

to me thats called a gender

#

to you obviously something else

#

But then how would you name it

#

Or do you straight up deny that some people have those feelings and expressions?

radiant trout
#

I dont care how you name it

#

i have asked you multiple times already how you would name it

#

then we can use that

#

and go from there

wintry zodiac
#

No wait before we continue, if I rename the word gender (in my definition) into flurburgerlurg. Then that removes the total existence of the word gender because I dont recognize the other definition. So if thats not what you are connecting to here then continue.

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

I ask you what YOUR word is for the phenomenon that i call gender

#

You cannot deny that there are people that experience these feelings

#

And if you say its not gender, then it must be something else

#

so what is that for you

#

how would i call it in your terms

#

Denying people having these experiences is like me denying that religious people exist

#

or saying that if you are religious you are christian

#

i dont accept other religions

#

therefore if you are not christian you are not religious

#

Islam doesnt exist

#

But these are all semantics

#

Because the fact is that there exist people that deem themselves religious and do not subscribe to the christian god

#

therefore it is irrelevent to whether I call them religious or not

#

Hence i want to know how you would describe the phenomenon we call gender

#

so we can use that and move on

wintry zodiac
#

So you are asking me for a word that would define what people feel when they feel like expressing the opposite sex or something else entirely?

radiant trout
#

I don't understand what is not clear to you

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

I can literally point at a person and you will claim that their feelings do not exist, even though they are literally expressing their feelings

#

Like

#

how

#

The fact is these people do exist

#

you cant deny that

#

so if you refuse to call it gender, how would you call it

wintry zodiac
#

I cannot deny that people (in their mind) feel that they feel like another sex or something else entirely (remember This isnt what gender is for me so..)

radiant trout
#

There are people that exist where the way they would prefer to out themselves does not fit in with the expected behaviour of someone of the same sex

#

I call it gender

#

how do you call it

radiant trout
#

for the 10th time

#

What is so hard about answering a simple semantics question

#

its not rocket science im just asking you for a word

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout how do you call it

Dont wanna show myself as rude, however I and many other call it "mental", now obviously I seem rude off of this and I probably am but yeah either mental or something imaginary

radiant trout
#

Alright

#

So mental people exist

#

going off your definition

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

yeah i guess

#

its just a word, why would i care

wintry zodiac
#

Now what?

radiant trout
#

Now we can have an actual discussion about mental people

#

finally

#

after all this time

#

Why do you feel the need to invalidate the feelings of mental people

#

What in their behaviour makes it that you cannot agree with the way the want to express themselves?

#

i just want the constant "ThATs NOt wHAt GenDEr iS" bs to stop

#

so lets call it mental from now on

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

But you understood what we meant so why make it such a big deal

#

its about discussing the idea, not the word

#

and you made it only about the word

#

everytime you didnt agree you were like ''thats not what gender is to me''

#

making it semantic again

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

So how can you simultaneously admit that they exist, but then deny that they exist

#

I dont really understand the train of thought there

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Yeh but i dont see how that workds

#

how does that make sense to you?

#

I want to understand from your pov

#

Why you think that their beliefs are invalid

#

or why you consider them ''mental'' or ''imaginary'' as you mentioned earlier

#

To reiterate, i honestly don't care how you call it. if you think its mental than that is what you believe and i probably wont change that

#

But i am wondering what your motivation is for thinking that

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Why you think that their beliefs are invalid

Basically I dont necessarily say that their beliefs are invalid, its just that I dont believe what they believe they are and dont recognize that. I dont say that what they believe shouldn’t be believed in but simply say that I dont recognize what they believe in

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
radiant trout
#

I mean it is not something material.

#

But the same could be said for any other pshychological state

#

For example, do you believe in psychosis, ADHD, depression, being happy, any other emotion etc?

#

And if so, what makes this topic specifically so different from the others?

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout well i mean i agree its in their head, just like any other thing related to you ...

Yes however the things in my head (atleast from what others say) exist, like I percieve myself as a man and I am biologically a man and I exist and my "sex" or "gender" exists. I do believe in god and prophets as their messengers however they obviously may not exist and sure you can call that "mental" however its different from what they believe in because a God may actually exist in reality meanwhile what they believe they are doesnt necessarily exist

wintry zodiac
#

well being happy depressed/sad and other emotions are different from the gender that they percieve themselves to be

radiant trout
#

The way I see it, they are all just a model your brain tries to make based of the sensory information you get from the outside world

#

to me they are exactly the same phenomenon

#

And i find it rather arbitrary to make a disctinctoin

#

But maybe you have a good reason for that distinctoin

radiant trout
#

Because to someone else, it 100% exists

#

And saying that it does not exist is somehwat the same as just straight up denying their existence as a whole

#

I mean you could say it exists but you just don't subscribe to their idea and therefore believe it to be wrong

#

but right now you are denying them even having those feelings etc

#

which i am wondering wy

wintry zodiac
#

Using Agender (a gender that a person may express themselve as) as an example, Emotions are often seen as transient states of feeling that can change over time and in response to different circumstances. emotions are subjective experiences that can vary widely between individuals and cultures, influenced by personal history, context, and personality. They also involve both psychological and physiological components, such as changes in mood, bodily sensations, and hormonal responses. While I recognize that their sex/gender is innate and immutable or in other words fixed, meaning I dont believe that what they are (male or female) can change and are fixed. Their feelings of what they are dont really exist ( in my perspective) while emotions do. Emotions are different from what they perceive themselves to be I think I need to explain this better

radiant trout
#

just because you don't have the same feelings doesn't mean that other people don't have them too

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

If we use your definition of gender, then yes more than 2 genders do exist but I still dont recognize them and call them "mental"

wintry zodiac
#

Anyway I gotta BRB

wintry zodiac
#

alr brb

radiant trout
#

The point is that what you physically are is different from how you mentally express yourself

#

As you said, you can go through a range of emotions

#

So even though you don't change physically as a person, you can still experience a range of mental states

#

that does not mean that these emotions are not real

#

Which is what you are arguing

radiant trout
#

How can you deny the existence of something that you agree exists

#

i understand you disagree with their feelings

#

That is valid

#

But it is inconsistent to on the one hand agree that those feelings exist, but on the other hand deny those feelings exist

#

if you know what im saying

radiant trout
#

Approximately 10-15% of all people are not cis-gendered heterosexual. If you say most of those people are ''mental'' you are talking about a group of about a billion people

#

Whereas the vocal group you refer to, lets say the LGBT activists, is only a very very small subset of that group

#

The biggest gathering of LGBT people worldwide only has a couple thousand people. Thats still only a millionth of the entire group

#

So to me that would not be ''a lot''

radiant trout
#

so then why make a distinctoin to say one does exist and the other doesnt

#

that is rather arbitrary

#

like you have to jump through some hoops to get to that conclusion

#

You don't apply the same set of rules to the different situations

#

And that last part is what bothers me so much

wintry zodiac
#

As in

#

Fuck my wording made my thing make no sense

#

I meant that I dont recognize the existence of what they are feeling

south jungle
#

This thread gets busy in the morning lol

wintry zodiac
#

Its hard to explain

wintry zodiac
south jungle
#

Fair. When you said you were Canadian I took that to mean you were in Canada.

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
#

Well I gotta go on a run now bye I will talke later

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
south jungle
# ebon perch I guess my concern with this whole issue partly comes from the fact that, at lea...

This is the same issue I have with teaching farming or repair skills in a mandatory class. Self-sufficiency has clear value to me, but is it worth cutting out math classes to teach a child how to repair a car? I think we would agree that alcohol is not worthy of an entire yearlong class period, but how should we decide what makes the cut and what doesn't (and at what point in a child's education)? I would propose that critical thinking and reading skills are core competencies and should be taught from a young age, i.e. if you teach a child to read and imbue in them a love of learning, they can learn how to farm or work on a car. What made you pick out math, science, history, and English initially? Maybe we can work from there.

ebon perch
# radiant trout > Well that's not what I believe the purpose of school is for. It is to provide ...

Well the thing is though, you do need history to do accounting, it requires you to understand the history of laws regarding handling money, farming not as much. But that is only one aspect, the job portion. You do need history to get into universities as those are designed to make people "well-rounded" int heir educational knowledge, which having a basic understanding of history is generally required. Sports I agree with, but sports are not required of kids in school. Geography I also agree with, that isn't too important unless you just want to understand the rest of the world, or particular areas.

south jungle
#

@wintry zodiac

[Parents] might respect LGBTQ individuals ... but they dont want their children to be learning this topic because their children may succumb to be a member of the LGBTQ
You assume here that a person is born straight and turned gay. As has already been posed here several times: did you choose to be straight? Do you choose the people who you are attracted to? Could you decide to just become attracted to somebody you're not? If not, then you need to consider why you think someone else can. If they can't choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, then there is no "succumbing" to be a member of the LGBT, only whether those feelings must be hidden or may be expressed.

[The LGBT community has] different values and morals, hence why we dont want them taught to our kids...
If you believe that gay people have a right to exist and be seen in public like everyone else, then what are these morals and values that differ from your own?

Algebra and other subjects are core subjects, they are the reason why kids go to school in the first place.
If you can provide a clear rationale for including certain subjects in a school curriculum we can further discuss whether or not LGBT topics fit those criteria. What are the criteria that make algebra a core subject in a school curriculum?

If all parents were to for some reason collect together and abandon algebra... then it should be respected...
I encourage you to look into the problem of the tyranny of the majority. If the majority of parents decided that sex ed and LGBT should be taught in schools, would you respect that?

We don't teach religious morals in the schools
You are claiming that certain topics should be excluded categorically because of your particular religious beliefs. The state is secular to avoid interfering with individuals' right to religious expression. Is the state obligated to remove material from its curriculum because a parent finds it objectionable?

ebon perch
# radiant trout > Sex.. That was the topic we were talking about, sex ed. Kids in school are not...

I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the governemnt teaching your kids. I mean, would you want the governemnt to teach your kids that it is only ok for biological men to be attracted to biological women? It should be up to the parents to decide which way they want to teach their children that, and if they don't want to and would instead rather someone else teach them that, their kid can then take a sex ed class that is optional in school.

The legal age of consent here in the US (most places at least) is 18, in my state it is 18, but with a 3 year gap, so a 15 and and 18 year old could have sex together, as long as they were in a relationship before the older of the two turned 18. To me it makes sense because, kids at that age are at a higher risk of complications in pregnancy, they are smaller, they aren't financially stable (or with as much of a capability to ensure they will have an income), etc. They're brains are also not fully developed, they're going to make rash decisions (or at least be more inclined to do so) and so measures to protect them should be taken place such as age limits so they aren't predated on by adults for example. A lot of places have laws or rules against people in superior positions within a organization from having sexual/romatic relationships with people beneath them because it can lead to a forced power dynamic.

ebon perch
# radiant trout - Being gay is something that you are born with. No scientific evidence points t...

  • If there is science pointing towards it not being a learned behavior I'd love to take a look at that, all the evidence i have seen has shown there is little correlation between anything such as genes and people's sexuality. That tends to make me inclined to believe, if there is not any sort of genes designed to control our sexuality, it must come from some other source, such as environmental factors. (Beyond this point it is just speculation, so I can be clear that this part is not scientific, but just my logical train of thought) I mean, we do know that most people are born hard-wired to want to reproduce and further the human race, but we can choose to go against our natural insticts. Reproduction comes from a male and female having sex, so naturally evolution would need to have a way to make animals instict to reproduce with each other, and with the opposite sex so that more of the species can be born. Most other animals don't have as sophisticated minds as humans to do think against natural instict and make different choices.

  • I completely disagree with the nation, that even if someone does choose their sexuality, which I do admit could be wrong, but from the evidence I've seen SO FAR, seems most likely, that is not a reason to abuse, degrade, assult, etc. them at all. Any sort of violence for peoples personal beliefs is horrific.

If you do have any scientific articles or anything that I just have not been able to find pointing to it being a "born trait", I'd be glad to take a read at them. I'm not saying my opinion is true, I'm just saying from the science I have seen, it is a logical conclusion. I easily could be wrong though as all science could be wrong if more evidence, studies, etc. come out.

ebon perch
# south jungle This is the same issue I have with teaching farming or repair skills in a mandat...

The reason I choose math, science, history, and english as the core classes that should be required, no other, is that they teach things everyone can use no matter where they are going. (History a little bit less, but it does teach us why we have what we have today, how our governments and systems work.) Math gives us valuable skills we can use no matter what, baking: you need to be able to work with numbers, shopping, need to make sure you're getting the right amount and not going over your budget. Science, we can't expect people to do a whole lot in thsi world if they don't know how to the world works, I don't think necessarily chemistry and stuff should be required (but it definitely should be options in high school for kids who are interested in career fields and further education regarding that subject) but basic science such as transitioning from solids to liquids to gas, the rain cycle, etc. are important things to know for a human to function. English, I mean this is probably the most important one. (By english I am more refering to a language/literature class in general sicne not every country is going to need to learn English) Kids need to understand how to speak, communicate, write, read, articulate their opinions, think critically, etc. These are basically "fundamental" skills that other ideas and subjects ultimately stem from and are sort of "pre-requisites" in my mind. I mean, even farming you need to have a strong understanding of science, animal behavior, plant behavior, soil science, etc. Almost any job requires these basic skills.

south jungle
#

@wintry zodiac

Parents do not have a moral duty to allow their children to ... develop their identity... They have a right in choosing what their child should be taught...
Do they actually have carte blanche rights to decide what should and should not be taught? Genie was a child locked in a basement from a very young age and never taught to speak a language. Did her parents have a right to not teach her anything? Child neglect is a crime. Parents do have a moral obligation to develop their child, and part of this regards an identity (which unfortunately includes gender expression). Forcing your child to pretend to be straight because you think being gay is immoral is a piss poor parenting decision.

Homosexuality was never "widely" practiced, they acknowledged its existenced but never was widely practiced. It was rate and mostly disciminated and executed for.
Please note that I wasn't saying there was ever a 50/50 split of straight/gay people. To claim that homosexuality was ever "exceptionally rare" and "mostly discriminated and executed" is horseshit easily disproven by a google search. Homosexuality was practiced, acknowledged, and accepted worldwide. Homoeroticism is prevalent in Greco-Roman, Buddhist, and Native American mythology. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were rife with homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is bad came largely with Abrahamic religion. Even then there's contention over whether the Bible defines "homosexuality" (which is punishable) as our modern conception or pederasty/pedophilia (a la the Greek erastes-eromenos relationship)

south jungle
#

@wintry zodiac

In fact almost everyone before the 2000s was taught with similar beliefs and morals and turned out fine.
You do realize that the LGBT movement as you see it is an expression of the fact that "things before" were not, in fact, fine? Were things fine before the women's liberation movement, or the abolition of slavery? We look at history through the lens of events, we don't typically talk about how the people felt about their situation at the time.

In what world is thinking you are of some different gender that typically doesn’t exist or physically impossible for you to be, many do identify as a cat that’s reality but them thinking they are a cat of some sort is not reality.
"Gender" is simply the expression of sexual identity. Unless you want to check what's in someone's pants (or some other invasive procedure), you have no way of meaningfully verifying their actual sex. I don't get to decide how they feel about their gender. Can I decide that their gender is bullshit? Sure. I am entitled to my opinions. Can I decide that someone's religion is bullshit? Sure.
If I decide to make a scene about it, that makes me the idiot, not them. I am also not legally allowed to discriminate or perform hate crimes against that person. I should decide whether I like them or not based on the content of their character. If they annoy the snot out of me because they won't shut up about their cat gender, I am not obligated to be their friend. I'm not asking that of you either.

Biology isn't designed for homosexuality
I've explained why using animals as morals is wrong... you can't just pick out the good parts
When someone makes the claim "homosexuality is unnatural"... the first response should be "can we observe homosexuality in nature"? Clearly we can. We can't argue that something is immoral because it is unnatural when it is demonstrably natural.

south jungle
# ebon perch I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the govern...

Adopting a purely utilitarian stance here: sex ed has been shown to reduce sexual assault. If a child is aware of what inappropriate sexual conduct is, they are more likely to fall victim to sexual assault and, should they become a victim, to report the crime. Is it worth providing children with some limited sexual awareness if it has utility?

Does the state have an obligation to provide protection to children against parents who are sexually abusing their own children?

south jungle
clever quest
ebon perch
# south jungle Adopting a purely utilitarian stance here: sex ed has been shown to reduce sexua...

I guess that is a question. Should the state be required to provide some sense of sexual awareness to kids, in order to help deal with sexual assaults after the fact, or in some cases to be ale to prevent it in the making, rather than leaving that decision up to the parents. That leads to more questions then, at what age should kids be made aware of sex, sexual touching, etc. Sexual assault of minors can happen at any age, including infants disgustingly enough. Should the chance of sexual assault occuring to kids outweigh the parents choice in when their kids learn about certain principles and processes. I can see that, and it is kind of a tough question because you have to find a balance between ensuring kids understand enough to protect themselves and be able to raise awareness to adults about abuse they are experiencing and the parents right to decide when and how their children learn certain topics.

As for states obligation to protecting children against parents, I do think yes, if a child is being sexually abused by their parents (this might be harsh, I think any sexual abuse of children should warrant the death penalty), the government should be able to intervene. And this leads to the question, how would the government know, especially if the parents decide to hide the fact that what they are doing to the kid is sexual abuse which is where public school courses could come into play. Then again, what about the homeschooling aspect, if a parent decided to homeschool their kid, keep them locked inside the house without experiencing the otuside world, how would the state figure out at all without neighbors witnessing something. It does get tricky, and that is a good case for sex ed being taught to kids by the government.

rigid pumice
ebon perch
# rigid pumice Yes, that's why I believe that when parents are homeschooling there should be so...

Yea, but I guess that also raises the question, should that be paid for through taxes, reallocate taxes for it or new/increased taxes, or should parents who want to homeschool be required to pay for those checks? To me it seems that if it is a requirement it should be provided by the state government as I don't think homeschooling should have financial burdens forced onto it (other than one parents having to stay home to teach the kid(s)) I do agree though, I mean that is the only reason my mom figured out that my dad was abusive in punishments that would lead me to eb bleeding from spankings as a kid, which the school somehow noticed, I don't remember exactly how. That lead to CPS getting involved and him ultimately deciding not to punish me for anything really since he didn't want to lose custsody of me.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > [Parents] might respect LGBTQ individuals ... but they ...

You assume here that a person is born straight and turned gay. As has already been posed here several times: did you choose to be straight? Do you choose the people who you are attracted to? Could you decide to just become attracted to somebody you're not? If not, then you need to consider why you think someone else can. If they can't choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, then there is no "succumbing" to be a member of the LGBT, only whether those feelings must be hidden or may be expressed.
A person can be born straight, be heterosexual then change to being homosexual and back to heterosexual if he likes to, and even back to homosexual again right?

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > [Parents] might respect LGBTQ individuals ... but they ...

If you believe that gay people have a right to exist and be seen in public like everyone else, then what are these morals and values that differ from your own?
I believe they can exist and have a right to exist, however I dont agree with them and I simply dont want my children to be affected by LGBTQ and become gay or what not. While sure you have a right to exist and I wont stop you, I as an opposers have religious convictions that view LGBTQ identities and relationships as immoral or unnatural. I fear that teaching about LGBTQ topics in schools contradicts my religious teachings and values.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > [Parents] might respect LGBTQ individuals ... but they ...

If you can provide a clear rationale for including certain subjects in a school curriculum we can further discuss whether or not LGBT topics fit those criteria. What are the criteria that make algebra a core subject in a school curriculum?
Unlike the core subjects we have, being math english sciences and others. LGBTQ is simply teaching about the LGBTQ, I believe that LGBTQ topics are not directly relevant to the academic skills and knowledge that schools are primarily responsible for imparting, such as literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking. And some argue that education about LGBTQ issues, which they view as part of moral or values-based education, should be the responsibility of parents rather than schools. I can elaborate on this later.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > [Parents] might respect LGBTQ individuals ... but they ...

I encourage you to look into the problem of the tyranny of the majority. If the majority of parents decided that sex ed and LGBT should be taught in schools, would you respect that?
Unfortunately yes I would have to respect that, however at the moment it isnt a huge majority that believe it should be taught in school. Considering 60% of America is religious and sure some of them still do believe that it should be taught, many still dont and LGBTQ and the western world in general is stripping the belief in god overall I believe. Obviously if that were to happen I would either homeschool my kids, teach them to not believe what the LGBT believes in and/or also wait for WW3 at that point. To be fair LGBT would weaken the western world as more people become more "weak" and sensetive and many wont even fight for their country in the western world anymore, so the longer this does go on for the worse it may get I think. As someone who grew up in the western world and supports the west.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > [Parents] might respect LGBTQ individuals ... but they ...

You are claiming that certain topics should be excluded categorically because of your particular religious beliefs. The state is secular to avoid interfering with individuals' right to religious expression. Is the state obligated to remove material from its curriculum because a parent finds it objectionable?
I believe that most topics that arent apart of the core academic subjects and requirement should be kept away from school, such as LGBTQ and Religious teachings, and other types of moral teachings. The state is not automatically obligated to remove material from its curriculum simply because a parent finds it objectionable. However, the extent to which parents can influence curriculum decisions varies by jurisdiction and is often governed by local, state, or national education policies and regulations. (This can be extended upon)

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > Parents do not have a moral duty to allow their childre...

Do they actually have carte blanche rights to decide what should and should not be taught? Genie was a child locked in a basement from a very young age and never taught to speak a language. Did her parents have a right to not teach her anything? Child neglect is a crime. Parents do have a moral obligation to develop their child, and part of this regards an identity (which unfortunately includes gender expression). Forcing your child to pretend to be straight because you think being gay is immoral is a piss poor parenting decision.
Parents do not have a moral duty to teach their child the LGBTQ topic, because the same could be said for parents having a moral duty to teach their child about God and that he very well may exist. While yes Parents have a moral obligation to develop their child, it doesnt have to be LGBTQ unlike language. This is because the Parents may have religious or cultural beliefs that contradict that, Parents should have sole authority to decide what moral and ethical teachings are appropriate for their children. They may prefer to teach their children about LGBTQ topics (or not) in a way that aligns with their family values. And LGBTQ may in many parents views be age innapropriate for the child. Language is different from moral and ethical teachings.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > Parents do not have a moral duty to allow their childre...

Please note that I wasn't saying there was ever a 50/50 split of straight/gay people. To claim that homosexuality was ever "exceptionally rare" and "mostly discriminated and executed" is horseshit easily disproven by a google search. Homosexuality was practiced, acknowledged, and accepted worldwide. Homoeroticism is prevalent in Greco-Roman, Buddhist, and Native American mythology. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were rife with homosexuals. The belief that homosexuality is bad came largely with Abrahamic religion. Even then there's contention over whether the Bible defines "homosexuality" (which is punishable) as our modern conception or pederasty/pedophilia (a la the Greek erastes-eromenos relationship)
They were mostly discriminated and executed due to the countries beliefs, whether the country what Hindu Christian or Muslim, they did often execute these individuals and the country didnt even have to be religious. While "exceptionally rare" may or may not have been a exaggeration, "Homosexuality was widely accepted and practiced worldwide" is a huge exaggeration though, While yes it was prevalent in a few notable historic states, this doesnt mean it was accepted and practiced world wide, or even anywhere near close to that. Ancient nations like Greece and Rome, While there were periods of tolerance and even acceptance of same-sex relationships, especially pederasty in Greece, there were also cultural and legal restrictions at different times. The same goes for China however the legal restrictions were practiced a lot more often I believe. This concept can be applied to various Ancient cilivizations not influenced by Abrahamic religion and they mostly had legal restrictions or culutral restrictions on homosexuality.

#

Anyway I gotta go to school for now

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > In fact almost everyone before the 2000s was taught wit...

However I said using animals as an example of what nature intended and as an example of what our morals and ethics should be is false, because they have cannibalism and we don’t. Also sure there are animals who have sex with the same gender, but that doesn’t mean they are homosexual. Also saying homosexuality is ok because animals do it then we can also say cannibalism is ok because animals do it, and eating your own children as well. What I meant by nature didn’t intend for homosexuality is because the biology of these animals and humans is not meant to have sex with the same gender

radiant trout
# ebon perch * If there is science pointing towards it not being a learned behavior I'd love ...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01168-8
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/668167
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541

Nature
Genomic evidence consistent with antagonistic pleiotropy may help e...

Nature Human Behaviour - This research finds that genetic effects associated with same-sex sexual behaviour are associated with more sexual partners in individuals who only engage in opposite-sex...

#

Now I'm interested in your sources that say otherwise

#

Also I'd like to point out you had some flawed logic

#

You assume that if something is not genetic than it must be learned

#

However there is also other environmental factors which are not learned

#

For example, hormone levels in the mother have an influence on the gene expression of the child. Or pollution levels in the atmosphere have a direct influence on the development of embryos and young children. This is due to epigenetics where certain genes that are already present in a genome are ''turned on'' or ''turned off'' by these environmental factors, influencing which proteins are and arent synthesised and therefore determining certain behavioural traits. For example, one of such events is called methylation, which essentially blocks the ability for polymerase to properly perform transcription, inhibiting the transcription of that gene

#

Thats a factor that's neither genetic nor learned

#

But according to yourself, you have seen science pointing towards it being learned behavior

#

I'm very interested to read those

radiant trout
#

Specifically that last resource shows that most of the factors contributing to ones sexual orientation are either genetically determined or intra-uterine enviornmentally determined

#

So factors that are present when the fetus is in the womb.

#

Far bevore any behavior can be taught/learned

#

Hence suggesting that ones sexual orientation is in fact everything but learned behavior

radiant trout
# ebon perch I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the govern...

I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the governemnt teaching your kids. I mean, would you want the governemnt to teach your kids that it is only ok for biological men to be attracted to biological women?
So before we can discuss this, first we need to be on the same page on what is exactly taught in schools about this topic. I am sure this widely differens from school to school and from country to country. Where I live, the education on LGBT is part of sexual education, which starts at age 4/5 and is mandatory for everyone. Why is it mandatory? Because extensive research has shown that it is in the best interest of the kid to teach them sexual educatoin as it reduces the changes of them to for example become victims of sexual predatory behavior and reduces the changes of them later in life becoming sexual predators.

Now at age 4/5 they don't learn about sex or anything related. They learn about different families. Some are black, some are white, some are mixed. Some have a mom and dad. Some have 2 moms, some only have 1 parent. Just factual statements about how society works at the moment. Furthermore, they learn for example that touching can be good, but also bad. For example, if I punch you, that is bad touching. But if I give you a high-five, that is good touching. But if I give you a high five without consent, someone else might think you are trying to hit them, so you should ask consent etc.

Now it is not until the age of around 12/13, when students reach puberty, that they first get to learn about actual sex-related stuff. For example, what is the difference between a boy and a girl. What happens during puberty to a body. What is a menstruation cycle.

Then when students reach the age of about 15, they get to learn about stuff that has actually to do with sex. Like, what are stds, how can you spot them, what do you need to do. What is anti-conception. How do you spot sexual predators etc.

#

And no where in the full curriculum is any extra attention given to LGBT other than: lgbt people exist and they should be respected similarly to how you should respect anyone else

#

Queer people exist. For example, some people like people of the same sex. Other people are born as a boy but don't feel at home in their body. -> That's pretty much all attention that is specifically given to LGBT in the Sex Ed curriculum

radiant trout
# ebon perch I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the govern...

So for my actual reaction:

I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the governemnt teaching your kids
I think its the core responsibility of a government to educate its people. So yes i want the government teaching my kids.

I mean, would you want the governemnt to teach your kids that it is only ok for biological men to be attracted to biological women?
In the curriculum there are no value claims about what is wrong and what is right with regards to sexuality. They only speak about what is happening in the real world and prepare you to deal with certain things if required. No I would not be okay with them claiming that it is only okay for biological men to be attracted to biological women. Neither would i be okay with them claiming that it is not okay for people to believe that only separate-sex relations are okay. It works both ways. You can have your personal opinion on what you believe is right regarding sex and sexuality, but school is there to teach you the facts and prepare you for life.

It should be up to the parents to decide which way they want to teach their children that
No because not all parents are able or willing to do that, which is hurting the children long term. Sexual education is at least just as important as learning history or maths, as it also teaches many other important lessons that you require in life, e.g. what is consent, how to say no etc etc. Its not just about sex, its about how to stand up for yourself, how to respect others even if you disagree with their opinion etc. Basically it teaches you how to respectfully co-exist with other people in society.

radiant trout
# ebon perch I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the govern...

The legal age of consent here in the US (most places at least) is 18, in my state it is 18, but with a 3 year gap, so a 15 and and 18 year old could have sex together, as long as they were in a relationship before the older of the two turned 18.
Okay. Legal age here is 16. Don't really see how that is relevant.

To me it makes sense because, kids at that age are at a higher risk of complications in pregnancy, they are smaller, they aren't financially stable (or with as much of a capability to ensure they will have an income), etc.
Which is precicely the reason kids need to learn about this stuff in school. They need to learn about pregnancies, about how to prevent them, e.g. using contraceptives. They need to learn the risks of having sex. They need to learn that certain actions can have life-long concequences. All of those are taught in sex-ed.

They're brains are also not fully developed, they're going to make rash decisions (or at least be more inclined to do so) and so measures to protect them should be taken place such as age limits so they aren't predated on by adults for example.
YES. YES. YES. And you konw how we can protect children form predators, making rash decisions etc. By TEACHING them. You literally describe the full motivation of teaching children sexual education as a mandatory part of the curriculum.

A lot of places have laws or rules against people in superior positions within a organization from having sexual/romatic relationships with people beneath them because it can lead to a forced power dynamic.
Yes, and still many people try to break those laws. Which is exactly why you should be taught how to recognise and state your boundaries in order to not get into those situations in the first place.

Thank you for articulating exactly why it is important to teach sexual education to children! Based on what you wrote, I am puzzled to the fact you claim you DONT want sexed to be mandatory...

ebon perch
# radiant trout https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693 https://www.nature.com/artic...

The first link you provided I have actually came across before, and it is debated about the relliability of the findings based on accuracy of the phenotype: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba2941.

I'll be sure to check the following articles when I reset my university password lol, forgot to update it, so I can read the full text to really understand what the information is they are presenting: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01168-8 and https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/668167

That nature article seems really interesting, I'd be pretty inclined to understand exactly what they mean by OSB people having mating benefits when they have some SSB traits(?). Not sure if I fully understood the abstract there, but that is what it seemed like, which is why they believe SSB has been on the rise in humans.

Ima read https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541 tomorrow morning, but from just a quick glance it seems more of a causal analysis, so I'll probably end up reading mroe fo the sources mentioned for their statistics. Any way, the dialouge presented could prove useful in showing something to me in a way I hadn't thought of. Thanks for providing these.

The sources I had were not as recent as these, but basically the consensus was "we don't know, there is not enough coorelation to say that sexuality is genetically determined". It seems like your first article was a source that attempted to establish some credibility for that notion, so i'll probably look for some newer articles that are relevant to the subject.

Nature
Genomic evidence consistent with antagonistic pleiotropy may help e...

Nature Human Behaviour - This research finds that genetic effects associated with same-sex sexual behaviour are associated with more sexual partners in individuals who only engage in opposite-sex...

ebon perch
# radiant trout > I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I'm arguing against the gove...

I guess the issue is going to come down to an issue on how much control the government should have over our lives. My belief is as little government involvement as possible. I have after taling to General Bains come to the conclusion that sex ed in high school (not sure if that is the term also used int he netherlands) would be beneficial, and something I'd likely view as a bonus to have in schools.

radiant trout
# ebon perch The first link you provided I have actually came across before, and it is debate...

That nature article seems really interesting, I'd be pretty inclined to understand exactly what they mean by OSB people having mating benefits when they have some SSB traits(?). Not sure if I fully understood the abstract there, but that is what it seemed like, which is why they believe SSB has been on the rise in humans.
Yeah i mentioned this multiple times already but it everytime i bring it up it is dismissed as ''its not logical''.

The sources I had were not as recent as these, but basically the consensus was "we don't know, there is not enough coorelation to say that sexuality is genetically determined"
Right and this is where it is annoying me. Because you clearly stated that we have no evidence for genetics, THEREFORE it must be environmental behavior, THEREFORE it must be learned behavior. However, if you cannot find evidence for say genetics, that does not mean that the others are automatically true, and it even does not mean the initial statement is not true either. So i would kindly ask you to at least reconsider those conclusions 😉

radiant trout
ebon perch
# radiant trout So for my actual reaction: > I'm not arguing against teaching kids that stuff, I...

I think its the core responsibility of a government to educate its people. So yes i want the government teaching my kids.
I think its the core responsibility of the parents to educate their kids. The government is free to offer schools to help facilitate education and provide resources for parents who either don't have the knowledge, time, or resources, to educate their kids themselves. Now, I do agree with the way the US homeschooling works, of having standardized test that homeschooled kids have to take as well as public school kids, as then they can ensure the child is actually keeping up with the courses, but there should be state sponsored resurces such as physicians and social workes required to make periodic check ins on the kid to ensure they are being properly taken care of.

In the curriculum there are no value claims about what is wrong and what is right with regards to sexuality.
I guess we just have to trust that the governemnt (and the teachers employeed by that government) are willing to hold to the same ideals. Here in the US there have been many cases of teachers pushing LGBTQ beliefs of kids, including punishing kids who refused to watch videos about homosexuality and transgenderism.

No because not all parents are able or willing to do that, which is hurting the children long term.
Yea, that is why it is a choice. They can still allow the government to provide that education if they don't want to. But, as I mentioned in regards to the rest of your comment there in my previous comment, I do agree now that sex-ed should be taught in high schools (albeit still an elective, but maybe not parental consent required)

ebon perch
# radiant trout > The legal age of consent here in the US (most places at least) is 18, in my st...

Okay. Legal age here is 16. Don't really see how that is relevant.
My ultimate point about the age thing was, which I think you mentioned in the Netherlands, that they don't make it sexual until about 15, is that I don't believe it should be taught to kids before they're legal age of consent, which I honestly am curious at the reasoning behind the netherlands having the legal age at such a young age. My main point is to not put the idea of sex into the mind of kids until they are legally able to do so. The parents, if they decide not to deligate the responsibility to schools, should teach their kids that other kids or adults should not be touching them in inappropriate places, and to report it to a different adult if someone tries to do so.

radiant trout
# ebon perch > I think its the core responsibility of a government to educate its people. So ...

I think its the core responsibility of the parents to educate their kids.
Yeah that makes it akward as there we kinda fundamentally disagree on the role of parenting. Either that or we have a different view on what ''education'' entails.

Now, I do agree with the way the US homeschooling works, of having standardized test
So then what is the difference? If the curriculum is still mandated by the government, then in theory home-schooling vs going to school should have similar results..? Then why not just send your kids to school in the first place

I guess we just have to trust that the governemnt (and the teachers employeed by that government) are willing to hold to the same ideals.
Well, there is just a curriculum that needs to be taught with material that is provided. There is very little room for ''personal opinions'' of teachers etc. Maybe the differences in our views is largely fueled by differences in the educational system as a whole.

Here in the US there have been many cases of teachers pushing LGBTQ beliefs of kids
I mean, this is the pinacle of anecdotal evidence no? I keep hearing this, also from the other kid, where he keeps claiming that ''most lbgt people do this'' or ''all of non-heterosexual people do that''. But to be honest, I have not seen one piece of evidence that points towards this being an actual issue other than one-off events happening. I'm not saying that it does not happen, but I am saying that I am highly sceptical about claims similar to this one.

including punishing kids who refused to watch videos about homosexuality and transgenderism.
Yeah i mean i also agree this is wrong. But that has nothing to do with the overall concept of sexual education and teaching children about sexuality and thats just a wrong teacher doing wrong stuff. I can think of many many personal anecdotes that were the opposite, where i was mocked by teachers as a child for being ''different''. Thats not to say that all teachers are bad (1/2)

radiant trout
# ebon perch > I think its the core responsibility of a government to educate its people. So ...

Or that all people who are ''anti-lgbt'' are bad people. it just means I was unlucky with the people I encountered

Yea, that is why it is a choice.
But my point is that it shouldnt be a choice. Since not all parents are able to make a proper decision for their child and also are not able to properly teach this stuff themselves, becaus for example it makes them uncomfortable. In my eyes, children have the RIGHT to learn about this, as it directly influences their lives. Therefore i find it very strange to lay the responsibility with the parents and not with the education system.

ebon perch
# radiant trout > > That nature article seems really interesting, I'd be pretty inclined to und...

Yeah i mentioned this multiple times already but it everytime i bring it up it is dismissed as ''its not logical''.
And I still do until I read the article in the morning. I didn't dismiss the idea though, I just said that it seems illogical and that it was something I'd look into, not that it is impossible. Logic can only get so far without actually testing and researching your hypothesis.

Right and this is where it is annoying me. Because you clearly stated that we have no evidence for genetics, THEREFORE it must be environmental behavior, THEREFORE it must be learned behavior. However, if you cannot find evidence for say genetics, that does not mean that the others are automatically true, and it even does not mean the initial statement is not true either. So i would kindly ask you to at least reconsider those conclusions
I don't think it MUST be environemntal or learned behaviors. I think those are just the most likely from my current understanding. I don't have a hard-set conclusion, I just have one that I lean towards from my current knowledge (and lack of as I'm no expert in the field), so I don't hold it as an absolute opinion, and it definitely is open to being reconsidered.

radiant trout
# ebon perch > Okay. Legal age here is 16. Don't really see how that is relevant. My ultimate...

My ultimate point about the age thing was, which I think you mentioned in the Netherlands, that they don't make it sexual until about 15, is that I don't believe it should be taught to kids before they're legal age of consent
Why do you hold this view? I am thinking the opposite. I'd rather have my kids be informed BEFORE they start having sex, rather than having to teach them all this stuff after they have already started. Because teaching them beforehand drastically reduces child pregnancies, cases of rape and sexual assault on minors etc. There is enough evidence to back this up. I don't see why you would NOT want that...

which I honestly am curious at the reasoning behind the netherlands having the legal age at such a young age
I mean its all relative right. To me 18 is old for this stuff. It all depends on what is ''normal'' to you based on what you learned and what the societal norms are. I know that in the middle-ages, an accepted age for having sex was when women first started menstruating, which could be as early as 12/13. Then since the industrial revolution, more resources were available for people to survive without the need of having children at a young age to help work on farms etc, combined with a decline in child mortality. Then gradually it became more ''normal'' to have children at a later age. Then at some point during the 20th century, the age of consent of 16 was determined and it has not really changed ever since.

My main point is to not put the idea of sex into the mind of kids until they are legally able to do so.
People sexually mature between 14 and 18 years old (biologically speaking). Also, I think it is extremely naive to believe that kids do not think about sex etc without them being taught about it. Pretty much all children and teens do this already just by nature and out of curiosity. The only thing we can do is to help guide them in that process rather than acting like its taboo.

radiant trout
# ebon perch > Okay. Legal age here is 16. Don't really see how that is relevant. My ultimate...

The parents, if they decide not to deligate the responsibility to schools, should teach their kids that other kids or adults should not be touching them in inappropriate places, and to report it to a different adult if someone tries to do so.
Yes but not all parents do this, hence we teach this stuff to children so they can protect themselves regardless of whether their parents deem it neccesary or not

radiant trout
ebon perch
# radiant trout > I think its the core responsibility of the parents to educate their kids. Yea...

Yeah that makes it akward as there we kinda fundamentally disagree on the role of parenting. Either that or we have a different view on what ''education'' entails.
I think it is probably more of core disconnect on the role of parenting, but no one has 1:1 opinions on anything, so probably we have some difference on what "education" entails (or should entail)

So then what is the difference? If the curriculum is still mandated by the government, then in theory home-schooling vs going to school should have similar results..? Then why not just send your kids to school in the first place
Well the difference is that the government provides the subjects and core understandings that need to be understood to pass certain test standards, it is then up to the teacher (in-schools or parents) to provide that information to the students in the best way the see fit. Teachers can also wedge in personal biases into lectures totally separate from the core content of the class. That is probably the main reason for home-schooling, to ensure your kid is learning properly, and ensuring they aren't being instilled with extra values that aren't necessary to the required courses.

Well, there is just a curriculum that needs to be taught with material that is provided. There is very little room for ''personal opinions'' of teachers etc. Maybe the differences in our views is largely fueled by differences in the educational system as a whole.
Maybe, I just know that from my time in highschool and middle school (as those are the most memerable classes I've had that were required of me without my own consent) our teachers still followed the curriculum, but that didn't stop them from having their own personal opinions that they'd share with the class (sometimes being technically illegal, but most of us didn't care)

I mean, this is the pinacle of anecdotal evidence no?
Regardless, my point is teachers can influence kids beyond curriculum, thre is no way around that except homeschooling

#

It's getting late(or early technically) ima head to sleep for now and respond in the morning.

radiant trout
# ebon perch > Yeah that makes it akward as there we kinda fundamentally disagree on the role...

That is probably the main reason for home-schooling, to ensure your kid is learning properly
I mean as a teacher myself I have a lot of objections about this way of thinking. Many parents that I have come across are barely fit to parent, let alone to teach. Teaching properly is pretty hard and most parents are simply not able to properly do it. Where I live we need a university degree to be able to teach, where you learn about learning theory, you get some courses on child psychology, didactics etc. Basically, you learn about all aspects that have to do with teaching from a scientific point of view. What things are important, how you best bring up certain points or how to best teach certain subjects. But next to that also how to communicate properly with chilren etc. All of those things are required to properly educate children. None of which most parents have ever heard about

To me the notion that some people hold that home-schooling could be better than governent school classes is like similar to saying that little timmy could be better in accounting than the head accountant of a big4 firm since he has already learned addition of numbers.

The fact is, even though you can put a child on this planet, does not mean you are a good parent and it does not mean at all that you are a good teacher. And I think many parents overestimate their upbringing abilities as well as teaching abilities.

radiant trout
radiant trout
clever quest
#

I think you definitely need to teach people about stuff before they encounter it rather than after, otherwise the teaching is almost entirely pointless. With anything to do with social interactions you always learn a lot more from your peers than you do from an abstract lesson, so the only way people get anything from sex education is if they encounter it first when they don't already have socially reinforced views. And the reality is that kids will encounter sex basically as soon as they go online. Sex education lessons will not put sex into the minds of anyone, it is already in their minds. Also, people will start investigating it on their own as soon as they have any kind of sexual feelings, which happen naturally without any outside influence, so there is an inescapable biological timeframe before which you need to teach them about it. Also, having a legal age of consent is pointless unless you teach people what that means at an age where it's relevant to them. So yes, sex education certainly needs to happen before puberty at the very latest.

On the point about home schooling, I have to agree that it's sometimes a good idea. Group lessons are fine for people that largely fit within the social norms, but putting kids into a social situation like that when they don't fit in socially can have bad effects that outweigh the good effects of the reliability and breadth of the teaching in schools. Although there are of course skills involved in teaching, these are skills that parents can learn for themselves if they are motivated to do so, and there are many different ways of teaching just as there are many different ways of learning. And although socialising with others is an important kill to learn, the reality is that socialising as an adult is vastly different from socialising as a child.

#

But, I disagree entirely that parents should be able to control exactly what their children learn. They shouldn't, and indeed never can. If you're living in a society then you need to learn about the rules of that society, and any interaction with anyone else besides your parents will involve learning from those interactions. Nobody can prevent their children from coming into contact with different ideas. And I would say it's generally harmful to try and do so, as people need to be able to make their own choices that are best and most relevant for them.

radiant trout
#

However, experiences and expectations are wildly different since I have grown up in a different culture.

radiant trout
# wintry zodiac > If you believe that gay people have a right to exist and be seen in public lik...

Since you seem to have the impression that being confronted with LGBT could result in someone becoming homosexual, I would kindly suggest you looking up some scientific literature on the topic or stop making these unsupported assumptions. The fact that you honestly believe that someone can ''become'' gay is the craziest thing I've heard out of you so far, and you have mentioned your fair share of crazy stuff.

#

If you want a starting point, I already sent 4 links to Dan that you could read if you wanted

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Please show me one single scientific paper that gets to that conclusion

#

then we can continue

#

its utter bs

wintry zodiac
#

1 sec

radiant trout
#

As far as we know, the main factors that influences ones sexuality are

  1. genes
  2. intra-womb environmental factors (e.g. hormonal changes in the blood of the mother during pregnancy)
#

I acknowledge that environmental factors play a role, but what you mean with environmental factors is not the same as what i mean with envoronmental factors

#

But i explained all of this if you scroll up just a tiny bit

wintry zodiac
#

I think many articles exist on this

radiant trout
#

Did you read this article yourself?

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
#

I did read a bit

radiant trout
#

So why would i read it if you didnt even take the time yourself to read it

#

do you even understand their conclusion?

wintry zodiac
#

Give me 1 sec I gotta get home

#

And I’m gonna find you some

radiant trout
#

yeah take your time

#

I present to you red flag number 1: "The non-shared environmental variance reflects factors affecting each twin individually (e.g., specific prenatal events or peer socialization) and also includes measurement error."

wintry zodiac
#

However the percentages of lgbtq people comparing usa to rather religious countries is something to note as it doesn’t have to do as much with discrimination in some countries

radiant trout
#

Surely you knew that as you were the one sending the study

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

oh

#

"The effect of E on all traits was large. E includes phenotypic variation accounted for by non-shared environment and measurement error. A variety of sources can cause measurement error, including inadequate or imprecise assessment instruments and phenotype description, and a variety of response styles, specifically acquiescence, disacquiescence, extreme response, midpoint responding, and noncontingent responding [52]. The twin modelling approach used in this study does not allow separation of the two sources, hence, quantification of the influence of measurement error is impossible."

#

So in this study you presented, they basically said we have 3 categories of possible influences:

  • genetic
  • shared environment
  • non-shared environment

Where they attributed all variation that could not be attributed to either genetic or shared environment into non-shared environment. Do you understand what that has as far as impliciations for the conclusion of their study with regards to claims made on the ''environmental factors'' that you described earlier?

wintry zodiac
#

I believe its still under research (like genes affecting sexuality)

#

You cant say its wrong though I think

wintry zodiac
#

obviously its still under research but its not a fact

radiant trout
#

Look, if you say ''environmental factors'' are factors that a fetus/embryo is presented with in the womb we agree

#

If somehow you mean to believe that this means anything after birth, then we drastically disagree

#

And even in the first source you provided there is no clear evidence of that

#

The second source does not even speak abou tit

#

Thats why its important to read it yourself

#

Because now you had me read through 2 sources to find out that they don't even support your view...

#

You probably used some language model to find these sources didn't you?

#

Or just googled: ""homosexuality environment research""

#

Now I know that it is unfair of me to ask you for scientific literature, as you are only a minor with no proper education to actually read and understand these articles. And that is not your fault. But then if you would be smart, you'd accept that maybe you don't know much about the topic at all, and that your values alone are not enough to substantiate your claims

#

Therefore i would still suggest you just withdraw your previous statements and try to form an informed opinioin based on evidence and research rather than on morals and religious values.

#

Now, its totally fair to say, ""i dont accept homosexuals because they dont fit within my moral framework""

#

It however is not fair to claim that ""Homosexualtiy is something that you can choose"" if you cannot support it with any evidence other than it being your ''opinion'' (its not an opiinion if you state it like that)

#

Do you understand the difference?

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

"In this case the “environment” can be the uterine environment, and refer to conditions during fetal development, or the environment can refer to conditions after birth."

#

"The literature on post-birth experiences, and their impacts on sexual orientation, is challenging for many reasons, but largely because it is so difficult to disentangle the impact of a tolerant environment on a homosexual’s inclination to express their homosexuality."

#

Or to put it in simpler terms: It is very likely that tolerance towards homosexuality makes it easier for people to openly speak about it, which most likely heavily skews the results

#

Therefore, performing research on specific "post-natal environmental factors" is almost impossible

#

Hence in all studies, environmental factors includes literally everything that cannot be explained otherwise

#

Including tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality

#

Your sources therefore don't agree with your statement at all

#

But i already agreed with you that certain specifc environmental factors do have an impact

#

In fact, I specifically mentioned that already

#

So i am still puzzled what you are trying to argue here

#

And even more puzzled on what your sources are supposed to show...?

#

Because your claim was that your sexuality is formed by outside experiences, including for example getting in contact with LGBT community

#

Of which the latter is not supported in any way

#

which is exactly what i was challenging

#

Thats why i specifically asked you to elaborate what you meant with ''environmental factors''

south jungle
# wintry zodiac However I said using animals as an example of what nature intended and as an exa...

A person can be born straight... then change to being homosexual and back to heterosexual if he likes to...
I emphasize the clauseif he likes to. My point is that you do not will yourself to be attracted to somebody. Surely you find some people attractive and some not. Over time your attraction to a person may fade or become stronger. Is it because you say "I am going to become attracted to that person"?

I believe they can exist and have a right to exist...
Nobody is asking you to befriend all of the annoying cat people, only to respect their right to exist and express their identity publicly. Society is full of assholes both straight and gay.

I don't want my children... to become gay or what not.
If your children were gay despite your intentions, would you respect them or would you force them to closet themselves? If sexuality was determined by factors outside of your control, then this is the choice you have as a parent. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that this is the case.

LGBTQ topics are not directly relevant to the academic skills and knowledge that schools are primarily responsible for imparting...
This implies that some knowledge is worth imparting in school and some isn't. Why is that?

I fear that teaching about LGBTQ topics in schools contradicts my religious teachings
Don't teach about LGBTQ topics then. You have no right to impose your morality on the public because "my religion said so".

Unfortunately yes I would have to respect [if the majority of parents wanted to teach sex ed and LGBT in schools]
News flash!

The western world is stripping the belief in god overall.
Government is secular to respect your right to religious freedom as much as everyone else's.

LGBT would weaken the western world as more people become more "weak" and sensitive and many won't even fight for their country in the western world anymore"
Do you plan on serving your country?

#

@wintry zodiac

Parents do not have a moral duty to teach their child the LGBTQ topics, because the same could be said for parents having a moral duty to teach their child about God and that he very well may exist.
Parents do have a moral duty to educate their children on religion and to allow them to develop their own ideas.

Parents may have religious or cultural beliefs that may contradict [LGBTQ topics]
That is fine. A religious individual does not have a right to force their belief on other people. While parents do have the authority to direct the development of children, there is a line where parents are bound to respect their child's individuality. We can discuss where that limit is but clearly parents do not have unlimited authority over their child.

[LGBT individuals] were mostly discriminated and executed...
Find sources. If you're right then there should be some long historic record. It was common in medieval Europe and in Germanic and Celtic cultures.
There were periods of tolerance and even acceptance of same-sex relationships in Greece, there were also cultural and legal restrictions at different times.
Homosexuality was accepted for the majority of pre-Christian Greek history.
The same goes for China however the legal restrictions were practiced a lot more often I believe.
I encourage you to research your beliefs.

I said using animals... as an example of what our morals and ethics should be is false
I am not claiming that we should follow the example of animals. You have stated multiple times that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral. It is observable in nature, therefore you cannot reasonably claim that it is immoral for that reason.

I said using animals as an example of what nature intended... is false
If you can't see the mental gymnastics here there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle > A person can be born straight... then change to being homosexual and back to h...

I emphasize the clauseif he likes to. My point is that you do not will yourself to be attracted to somebody. Surely you find some people attractive and some not. Over time your attraction to a person may fade or become stronger. Is it because you say "I am going to become attracted to that person"?
Yes I understand what you mean, however I still believe it still holds some autonomy, otherwise people wouldnt be changing up so much would they? Now I am not claiming this as a fact, dont immediately ask for "proof" but I simply believe that it still holds some autonomy

wintry zodiac
# south jungle > A person can be born straight... then change to being homosexual and back to h...

Nobody is asking you to befriend all of the annoying cat people, only to respect their right to exist and express their identity publicly. Society is full of assholes both straight and gay.
I recognize their existence and their human rights, and I respect them as people but I do not have to believe or respect what they believe they are or respect them teaching my kids the opposite of what my teachings would be.

wintry zodiac
# south jungle > A person can be born straight... then change to being homosexual and back to h...

If your children were gay despite your intentions, would you respect them or would you force them to closet themselves? If sexuality was determined by factors outside of your control, then this is the choice you have as a parent. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that this is the case.
If my children were to be gay, I would most likely either disown them or cut my ties with them. I would also pray for their sake, I wont force them to do anything. However I most likely will do a lot to prevent any sort of influence of LGBTQ

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
# south jungle > A person can be born straight... then change to being homosexual and back to h...

Don't teach about LGBTQ topics then. You have no right to impose your morality on the public because "my religion said so".
Yeah I dont, and I dont impose my morality on the public because of my religion. I simply say that LGBTQ shouldnt be taught in school because of many parents's beliefs and my own beliefs that contradict it, doesnt have to do with religion. LGBTQ is not something (in our opinions) made for school and since we keep out religion out of School then you should keep out LGBTQ out of school too

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

Sorry for intetupting your chatter

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Why is that sad?

Dont know whether I can explain it, although Im not a christian I still emphasize with the christians are they are technically still like brothers or sisters to us Muslims, and seeing the religion dying is not great I believe.

radiant trout
clever quest
#

All religions die eventually.

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
#

I think it's about the best things that could happen to a society

wintry zodiac
#

Not really

#

Unless thats purely your opinion and not simply you trying to state a fact

wintry zodiac
# clever quest All religions die eventually.

Because theres a high likelyhood (and in my perspective 100%) that my religion or other religions are in fact the truth, obviously many pagan or pagan-like religions died before and may still die overtime but not Christianity and Islam

clever quest
#

I think it's a fact. There are hundreds of religions that died out, and the best that we can say about the current set is that they haven't died out yet.

wintry zodiac
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
clever quest
#

Since there is no evidence for any of the religions being true, there's nothing particularly differentiating any of them. But we have separate discussions on that elsewhere on this server, and don't need to get into it here.

wintry zodiac
# radiant trout Let me rephrase: why us losing belief in God a sad thing

Again, not 100% sure I can explain this properly and I dont know why this is even relevant. But I will try to give a few reasons, Losing belief in God can lead to existential angst or a crisis of meaning. Many might struggle with questions about the purpose of life and what happens after death, leading to feelings of uncertainty and fear (unfortunate to see this in your brothers and sisters). Religion can be a core part of an individual's cultural identity. Them losing belief in God might feel like losing a part of the people who believed in the same thing are lost.

radiant trout
wintry zodiac
clever quest
# wintry zodiac Well to me, the Quran being perfect and it making perfect sense to me is proof f...

We'll agree to disagree on that for now. From my point of view, no religion stands up to rational scrutiny of their ideas, and there is no evidence worthy of the label in support of any of them. So for me the belief in religion is purely subjective and relies entirely on choosing not to study it in an objective way.

My point here though is that you can't really use the argument that religion is good in a discussion with people from other religions or atheists, because they have no reason to value your religion.

wintry zodiac
clever quest
# wintry zodiac I see your point, however why is that point relevant

Because you're saying that ultimately you have a duty to oppose LGBTQ+ because of your religion, and arguing that LGBTQ+ should not be taught because it might harm religions. While that's fine for you to believe due to your religion, that isn't a persuasive argument for others.

south jungle
#

@wintry zodiac

If my children were to be gay, I would most likely either disown them or cut my ties with them.
Then you're an asshole. End of.

[Some knowledge is worth imparting in school and some isn't] because school is limited and we don't have infinite time to teach everything.
We already know that. There seems to be some criteria that makes some subjects more important to teach in school than others. Why should we use our time teaching math and not farming skills? We've already determined that math is a core subject. Why is math a core subject? Why do we need math skills more than we need farming skills?

[My willingness to serve in the military] depends on the country I'm opposing. However I believe I won't be serving the country... because of many reasons actually
If you join the military you are picking the country you fight for, not the country you fight against. You think you shouldn't serve because you have good reasons, but there are no good reasons why a gay person might choose not to serve? Why should I call a gay person weak for refusing to serve their country but not call you weak for refusing to serve your country?

It is still sad to see people being influenced by other factors away from their religion
It sounds like you are sad that people are being influenced away from your religion. I don't hold that against you, but don't pretend this is some righteous pursuit of religious liberty.

wintry zodiac
# clever quest Because you're saying that ultimately you have a duty to oppose LGBTQ+ because o...

Religion isnt taught in schools and LGBTQ shouldnt either, its not just because of religion and it doesnt necessarily harm religion but the people who are a part of that religion. I classify LGBTQ while doesnt worship in a god or anything, it can be classified as similar to religions in some ways or another and all in all shouldnt be taught because it contradicts many people's beliefs. LGBTQ teaches morals and whats right and isnt right and so does religion (this is the similarity kind of) and both shouldnt be taught in school in general

wintry zodiac
# south jungle <@699919144769814589> > If my children were to be gay, I would most likely eith...

Then you're an asshole. End of.
If you perceive me to be an asshole then sure, Obviously I would still love my child (maybe or maybe not) but doesnt change the fact that it basically went against everything I would typically teach and everything I go against. Now I can see why this may seem as an asshole move, but really you gotta look at the perspective of a religious person who fears god and doesnt want to be punished. In many religious people its sort of a moral duty to teach your child to follow the religion and if my child somehow becomes gay, then I have failed this duty and possibly may be punished in the afterlife for it too which may seem extreme for you but it makes sense.

We already know that. There seems to be some criteria that makes some subjects more important to teach in school than others. Why should we use our time teaching math and not farming skills? We've already determined that math is a core subject. Why is math a core subject? Why do we need math skills more than we need farming skills?
Math is a universal language and is fundamental in various fields, which includes many other subjects in itself like science, engineering, technology, finance, and everyday problem-solving. Math provides essential skills such as logical reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving that are applicable in many aspects of life and work. Learning mathematics helps develop abstract thinking and the ability to understand complex concepts, which are crucial for intellectual development. While farming is an important and valuable skill, it is more specialized compared to mathematics. Math has broader applications across many disciplines and industries. In many parts of the world, urbanization and industrialization have shifted the focus of education towards subjects that support a wide range of professions in an industrialized economy.

south jungle
# clever quest All religions die eventually.

All religions die eventually.
All dead religions have died. All dead humans have died. Does that mean that your death is inevitable? Technology could conceivably make us immortal within our lifespans. Likewise a "true" religion could be revealed.

I don't disagree with the conclusion. Using this argument in any discussion, much less one involving religion, is pointless.

wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
south jungle
#

I strongly doubt there is a god but I am not opposed to the idea. I am straight and support LGBT rights.

south jungle
# wintry zodiac > Then you're an asshole. End of. If you perceive me to be an asshole then sure,...

In many religious people its sort of a moral duty to teach your child to follow the religion and if my child somehow becomes gay, then I have failed this duty and possibly may be punished in the afterlife for it too which may seem extreme for you but it makes sense.
If you have already failed in your duty then you will be punished in the afterlife for it all the same. Why punish your child for something they can't willingly change? More importantly, if God had the ability to make your child gay or straight, why would he punish you (or your child)? If people choose to be gay, then why would He give them that choice already knowing they would make the wrong choice?

wintry zodiac
# south jungle > In many religious people its sort of a moral duty to teach your child to follo...

If you have already failed in your duty then you will be punished in the afterlife for it all the same. Why punish your child for something they can't willingly change? More importantly, if God had the ability to make your child gay or straight, why would he punish you (or your child)? If people choose to be gay, then why would He give them that choice already knowing they would make the wrong choice?
I can still redeem myself, which is why I changed my mind and try and guide them back. However if they still succumb to the devil and I tried helping them then I wont be punished. God gave people free will, to do anything they'd like, its just that they may be punished if something that has been done goes against the rules that he has created and the morals he has given. In religion there is typically a perfect Justice scailing thing, where your sins and your good deeds would be weighed and the overall outcome would determine your afterlife. God has given the option to commit sins and to do good deeds, an islamic answer is basically that this life is our test for the afterlife. As for why God would do all of this anyway may not be of our understanding or our knowledge to answer this and God is the all knowing. God has the ability to make anyone whatever but never necessarily made anyone gay or what they are.

clever quest
# wintry zodiac Religion isnt taught in schools and LGBTQ shouldnt either, its not just because ...

Teaching about LGBTQ+ is part of preparing kids for life in our society, and so is teaching them about different religions. Regardless of what parents want, it is the role of schools to do that, and that means teaching them about things that exist in our world. Information about both topics should be taught in schools.

When it comes to saying whether any of the religions are right, obviously schools can't teach that because there is no evidence to support any conclusion. So all that can be taught is that there are people who believe certain things without there being a clear rational reason for doing so.

With LGBTQ+, we can do the same. We can teach kids that there are people of all these different types, that are based on how they feel about themselves and others. We don't teach that any of them are superior, we just teach the basic facts which is that these people exist.

In neither case are we teaching morals. Morals only come in when we're teaching people to respect people who are different to us. That is one of our most important cultural values, which covers both religion and gender/sexual orientation and many other views besides, and isn't really up for debate.

wintry zodiac
# clever quest Teaching about LGBTQ+ is part of preparing kids for life in our society, and so ...

Teaching about LGBTQ+ is part of preparing kids for life in our society, and so is teaching them about different religions. Regardless of what parents want, it is the role of schools to do that, and that means teaching them about things that exist in our world. Information about both topics should be taught in schools.
Sure, you can teach that LGBTQ people exist but you shouldnt teach their morals and ethics like you shouldnt teach religions morals and ethics. You shouldnt teach either moral and ethics which is why both should be avoided from school in general, you can teach that LGBTQ and religious people simply exist I dont deny that though.

When it comes to saying whether any of the religions are right, obviously schools can't teach that because there is no evidence to support any conclusion. So all that can be taught is that there are people who believe certain things without there being a clear rational reason for doing so.
I feel like this may be directed as an insult but whatever, if all that children can be taught is that people believe in religion then all that children should be taught is that LGBTQ people exist, nothing more nothing less. You cant say "without there being a clear rational reason for doing so" Though because its not simply believing there is a god, its tied to many other things.

With LGBTQ+, we can do the same. We can teach kids that there are people of all these different types, that are based on how they feel about themselves and others. We don't teach that any of them are superior, we just teach the basic facts which is that these people exist.
I feel like based on what you said earlier, a better way to say this is "We can teach kids that there are all types of people, those who think they are dinosaurs and or cats simply based on how they feel about themselves, without any clear rational reason for doing so but their feelings and that these possibly just like religion are just made up."

wintry zodiac
# clever quest Teaching about LGBTQ+ is part of preparing kids for life in our society, and so ...

In neither case are we teaching morals. Morals only come in when we're teaching people to respect people who are different to us. That is one of our most important cultural values, which covers both religion and gender/sexual orientation and many other views besides, and isn't really up for debate.
They are teaching that being LGBTQ is ok and fine and if you dont feel like this then you can be that, which is teaching them morals

#

Imma sleep now

clever quest
# wintry zodiac > Teaching about LGBTQ+ is part of preparing kids for life in our society, and s...

Schools need to teach ethics and morals. All cultures and societies have ethical and moral principles, and everyone living in a society needs to know the rules for that society.

I feel like this may be directed as an insult but whatever,
It's not an insult. It's a simple factual statement. Religion isn't based on reason. It's ultimately based on simply trusting the words of other people.

I feel like based on what you said earlier, a better way to say this is "We can teach kids that there are all types of people, those who think they are dinosaurs and or cats simply based on how they feel about themselves, without any clear rational reason for doing so but their feelings and that these possibly just like religion are just made up."
I do think it would be good to teach kids that sometimes just because you feel something is right, or someone says it's right, doesn't mean it necessarily is right. But when it comes to people reporting their own feelings, there's simply no justification for challenging what they say. We have no other source of information. So short of getting into Descartes and the philosophical idea that maybe nothing is true, there's no reason to dispute what people report about their feelings.

We can say that some religions have a problem with it, but we do also need to say that our society overall does not have a problem with it. I think that is possibly the best way of handling it, saying what objections exist and saying where they come from. That way, if people already value those religions, they know how to view LGBTQ+. But if they find they like some of the ideas in LGBTQ+, or they have a stronger connection with the idea of accepting people with differences, then they know how to view those religions. If the ideas of religions are not strong enough to stand up to that level of challenge and prove themselves as being superior to society's ideas, then those religions have only themselves to blame.

ebon perch
ebon perch
# radiant trout > My ultimate point about the age thing was, which I think you mentioned in the ...

I'd rather have my kids be informed BEFORE they start having sex, rather than having to teach them all this stuff after they have already started.
Well yea, if the parent wants to teach their kids about the risks earlier in life, before they're even legally supposed to be engaging in those acts, then that is their choice (in my view at least), but if the government is going to teach it, they shouldn't teach them how to do things that they're legally not supposed to be doing.

I mean its all relative right.
Yea, that is true, I guess its just the culture I grew up in that makes it seem wrong for a 16 year old to be able to legally have sex (I'm assuming with anyone also above the age of consent, regardless of parent consent?) My view on when it should be taught btw is based on legal age of consent, so in Netherlands my view would be to teach it earlier than in the US, just to clarify since idk if that came across before.

ebon perch
ebon perch
ebon perch
# radiant trout > That is probably the main reason for home-schooling, to ensure your kid is lea...

I mean as a teacher myself I have a lot of objections about this way of thinking.
I do agree, not EVERY parent should be allowed to physically be the one educating their child on the subjects required by the curriculum, and the laws in my state at least, don't allow that. You have to show the government that the curriculum you are teaching is following the required curriculum and is of the same or better quality than that taught in public schools in your area. Also, there are large amounts of groups of parents who homeschool their kids together, basically like a school, to bring in the knowledge of individual parents.

I wouldn't say every parent should be allowed to teach their kid (regarding the core curriculums), but every parent should have the option to homeschool their kid.

lost vapor
terse zodiac
#

Erm I can’t find the first message can someone reply to it o.o

ebon perch
terse zodiac
#

ik i scrolled for 5 mins and it went back like 1 day :c

#

aaa i got it

ebon perch
#

Found it

#

Oh lol

terse zodiac
#

oke lemme reads ty doe

#

erm well like

#

id disagree but prolly because u worded ur question so poorly but somehow managed to discuss it with 1000x more detail and precision

#

and im not readin all da chat PeteCry

radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
radiant trout
wintry zodiac
wintry zodiac
# clever quest Schools need to teach ethics and morals. All cultures and societies have ethical...

It's not an insult. It's a simple factual statement. Religion isn't based on reason. It's ultimately based on simply trusting the words of other people.
Not really, not entirely. Most religions also rely on personal experiences (despite some contradicting each other) in general everyone feels "happier" or has felt other personal experience once converting. Also there have been Ancient texts and scriptures based on these events and many religions hold similar or the same concept on something despite not really being in contact. Archaeological discoveries, such as artifacts, inscriptions, and ancient structures, can provide context and support for historical events mentioned in religious texts. Cosmological argument as well, this argument posits that the existence of the universe necessitates a cause, which some identify as God. And others.

#

But dont ignore that someone identifying as a cat is just in their mind and not really what they are is it? I mean they say "trust me bro" as well technically that they are a cat

wintry zodiac
# clever quest Schools need to teach ethics and morals. All cultures and societies have ethical...

I do think it would be good to teach kids that sometimes just because you feel something is right, or someone says it's right, doesn't mean it necessarily is right. But when it comes to people reporting their own feelings, there's simply no justification for challenging what they say. We have no other source of information. So short of getting into Descartes and the philosophical idea that maybe nothing is true, there's no reason to dispute what people report about their feelings.
Agreed, we can also teach kids that its very much possible that anyone who identifies as neither male or female is possibly "mental" and has it all made up in their mind.

We can say that some religions have a problem with it, but we do also need to say that our society overall does not have a problem with it.
Your society is not Our society, you have to keep in mind over half of US is apart of abrahamic religions and about half of the world is part of the abrahamic religions and in general they are all against LGBTQ.

I think that is possibly the best way of handling it, saying what objections exist and saying where they come from. That way, if people already value those religions, they know how to view LGBTQ+. But if they find they like some of the ideas in LGBTQ+, or they have a stronger connection with the idea of accepting people with differences, then they know how to view those religions. If the ideas of religions are not strong enough to stand up to that level of challenge and prove themselves as being superior to society's ideas, then those religions have only themselves to blame.
Or in general dont teach either subject, that would avoid any objections and simply have school meant for the teachings of core subjects and avoid any further problems. Because religion and LGBTQ can be both taught at home.

wintry zodiac
#

I also find it a coincidence that I started this topic in the month of pride so thats interesting

radiant trout
# wintry zodiac > I do think it would be good to teach kids that sometimes just because you feel...

Agreed, we can also teach kids that its very much possible that anyone who identifies as neither male or female is possibly "mental" and has it all made up in their mind.
It is made up in their mind. Just like anything else that you could ever possibly think. Just like how you percieve yourself. Your name, your identity. The way you like to dress etc. Its all only existsing in your mind and there is no physical representation of it anywhere. The aregument that something is only ''made up in their mind'' is in fact useless as an argument, as almost anything is made up in people's mind.

#

Your believe in your god is also only made up in your mind

#

Don't get me wrong, Im not saying that is a bad thing