PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     another PC madness

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
hetero-male

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

School taught a lesson in Perversity

South Junior High School in Brockton, Mass. who barred a 15-year-old boy from wearing girls' clothes, e.g.; dresses, padded bras, wigs and high-heeled shoes, was ordered by a judge to allow the boy to attend school in whatever clothes he wishes to wear. The school argued he was disruptive, saying he upset parents and students by "wearing tight skirts and makeup to school, blowing kisses in class, and appearing at a semiformal dance in a slinky, black dress," according to the AP.(1) School officials said they had to repeatedly break up confrontations between he and other students, and that he was suspended three times for using the girls' restroom after being warned not to.
  The school sent the boy to a therapist, who diagnosed him with gender identity disorder. The therapist, Judith Havens, instead of treating the sick boy, claimed that it would be "medically and clinically necessary for (Pat) to wear clothing consistent with female gender and that failure to do so could cause harm to (Pat's) mental health,'' according to court documents.
  Judge Linda Giles, who is a lesbian, agreed, and ruled the prohibition amounted to "the stifling of a person's selfhood merely because it causes some members of the community discomfort.'' The AP reported that the judge, added that "students need to be exposed to differences at an early age in order to learn tolerance."
  The judge then declares society to be sick and this mentally ill boy is to be used as the medicine to cure everyone else of their belief in natural sex identity. The fact that children will be exposed to perversion against their parent's wishes and that girls will suffer sexual harassment and violations of their privacy in restrooms is considered a necessary discomfort in the re-programming of children. This mentally ill boy has demonstrated that he is a nuisance to others and violates the rights of girls to privacy. Other students can't wear just anything to school, or nothing at all, and if other students break the rules, like invading the restroom of the opposite sex, they will be suspended. But, it seems, that there is a different set of rules for queers and transvestites.
  This is a perfect example of queer fascism at work, a three sided conspiracy by a psychiatrist who encourages perversity rather than tries to cure it, an attorney, Jennifer Levi of Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, making the arguments, and a lesbian judge who refused a request by the school to remove herself from the case because of her sexual orientation. This violates the fundamental basis of a fair trial, that of neutrality and objectivity. Try a black man before a racist judge and jury, prosecuted by a racist attorney, backed up by racist experts who claim that objecting to racist acts is intolerance, and you will get the kind of rulings that were common in the Old South. Now a new prejudice has infested the court system, one that is determined to promote the queer agenda at the cost of everyone else's rights and wellbeing.  
  This is intolerable tyranny, that people are being robbed through taxation for their children to be forced into a school system that exposes them to perversity and violates girl's privacy. In a free society, children wouldn't be forced attend schools that contradict their parents' values and no one would be forced to wear any particular type of clothing, and no one would be forced to expose oneself or one's children to behavior you find objectionable; and in a fair justice system, litigants would be able to choose, ahead of time, a neutral court that both sides trust.

--Liberation Journal (1-12-2000) (21-1-5000)                                                by Dean Sullivan


 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 8:04 PM on February 15, 2003 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's so idiotic.  I can't believe things like this actually happen.

This politically correct garbage has gotten way out of hand.  I mean, come on, they let him into the girls bathroom for crying out loud!  That's nothing more than legally sanctioned, and even encouraged sexual harassment.

Disgusting...
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 04:27 AM on January 9, 2005 | IP
Jaxian

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If I sort out the situation, a male student was allowed to wear women's clothing.  That student was also allowed to continue using the women's restroom.

Okay, now I know this was refered to as a "perversion," but that word alone does not describe any harm done.

It was also claimed that the girls in the restrooms would be subject to sexual harassment.  This claim does not appear to be supported by evidence, as any sexual predator could easily walk into the bathrooms, and I'd wager a boy wearing women's clothing is probably not likely to sexually harrass someone.

It was also claimed that the girls would lose their right to privacy.  Considering the standards held by most schools, I don't see any problems with telling this student to use the boy's bathroom, but since the women's restroom is completely stalls, I don't think this violation of privacy is a very significant one.

It was also said that parents are forced to send their kids to school where one of the children has different values.  Really now, isn't that a good thing?

It was also said that this caused disruptions.  I will admit that if the child wearing women's clothes initiated those disruptions, he should be to blame.  If someone else did, that other person should be to blame.

So the problem we're looking at is what?  A boy is allowed to use the girl's bathroom.  Not a big deal in my opinion.  I worked in plenty of offices with unisex bathrooms, and we've never seemed to have any troubles.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 7:51 PM on January 9, 2005 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jaxian at 7:51 PM on January 9, 2005 :
It was also claimed that the girls in the restrooms would be subject to sexual harassment.  This claim does not appear to be supported by evidence, as any sexual predator could easily walk into the bathrooms, and I'd wager a boy wearing women's clothing is probably not likely to sexually harrass someone.


In my book, going into the bathroom of the opposite sex is a lesser form of sexual harassment in and of itself.


It was also claimed that the girls would lose their right to privacy.  Considering the standards held by most schools, I don't see any problems with telling this student to use the boy's bathroom, but since the women's restroom is completely stalls, I don't think this violation of privacy is a very significant one.


You can't tell me in all seriousness that it doesn't cause at the very least discomfort for the girls.

But then you may ask "isn't that just as uncomforable to him if he can't use the girls' bathroom?"

And perhaps it would be, but he's the one with the supposed disorder, so if anyone should be uncomfortable, logically it should be him.  It's not fair to make the hundreds of girls who attend that school undergo discomfort for the sake of that one boy.


It was also said that parents are forced to send their kids to school where one of the children has different values.  Really now, isn't that a good thing?


Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.  It's naive to think that any and all diversity of values is good.

For example (and I realize that this is extreme, but I'm only trying to prove a point), would you consider it a good thing to send kids to a school where one kid loves to, oh let's just say, stab people to death?

That is, after all, another difference in values.


It was also said that this caused disruptions.  I will admit that if the child wearing women's clothes initiated those disruptions, he should be to blame.  If someone else did, that other person should be to blame.


Obviously he initiated the disruptions, because they weren't happening until he started showing up in women's clothing.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 07:58 AM on January 10, 2005 | IP
Jaxian-

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my book, going into the bathroom of the opposite sex is a lesser form of sexual harassment in and of itself.


Interesting take on it, and I can see how one could say that.  But I think that sexual harrassment implies not only the discomfort of being around the opposite sex, but actually something related to sexual advances.  Because going into the bathroom is not an act of sexual aggression or unwelcome sexual advances, I would not classify it as sexual harrassment myself.

You can't tell me in all seriousness that it doesn't cause at the very least discomfort for the girls.

But then you may ask "isn't that just as uncomforable to him if he can't use the girls' bathroom?"

And perhaps it would be, but he's the one with the supposed disorder, so if anyone should be uncomfortable, logically it should be him.  It's not fair to make the hundreds of girls who attend that school undergo discomfort for the sake of that one boy.


I do agree that it would cause discomfort to the girls, though I also agree that it would cause discomfort to the boys should he use that restroom, and truthfully, discomfort isn't a big problem.  Heck, I get uncomfortable using a public restroom with anyone else at all in it, but I manage.

I think if I viewed this as a disorder, I would say, "Let him use the women's restroom" out of a sense of empathy for that disorder.  I would equivalently make exceptions for any sort of disorder one of my students might have, regardless of any minor discomfort it may cause others.  But I know many transgendered people, and none of them consider it a disorder, nor do I, based on my conversations with them.  Because of that, I don't think it is necessary for him to use the women's restroom.

Still, with a medical declaration that he has a disorder, it would be tough for me to refuse such a request, and I wouldn't put up a huge fight, since I don't see it as a big deal.  I think the situation would have been been easier to resolve if the school had shown no problem allowing this student to wear women's clothes as long as he went to the appropriate restroom.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.  It's naive to think that any and all diversity of values is good.

For example (and I realize that this is extreme, but I'm only trying to prove a point), would you consider it a good thing to send kids to a school where one kid loves to, oh let's just say, stab people to death?

That is, after all, another difference in values.


Of course I would not, but it would not be the difference in values, it would be safety of my child that I would fear.  If there were a child in the school who held the moral value that murder is acceptable but who chose not to perform such an act, then I would have no problem sending my child to that school.

Since we are discussing the extent of values issues here, I should bring up that many children in every school hold the values that it is acceptable to tease other children, and often to smoke or drink alcohol below the minimum age.  These acts are actually harmful to people, and I would think they would be far above the harmless act of wearing the clothing of the opposite gender on the school's list of priorities.


-------
-Jaxian
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 11:36 AM on January 10, 2005 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jaxian- at 11:36 AM on January 10, 2005 :
Of course I would not, but it would not be the difference in values, it would be safety of my child that I would fear.  If there were a child in the school who held the moral value that murder is acceptable but who chose not to perform such an act, then I would have no problem sending my child to that school.


But the problem is, many people think of it as a danger that their children would be converted to the way of thinking of the other child.

I realize that you don't see it this way, but a large portion of society holds believes that child's behavior to be wrong.

And yes, I also realize that things such as drugs and alcohol in school are also dangerous, and should be done away with.  That's not the point though.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 01:03 AM on March 6, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"...a large portion of society holds believes that child's behavior to be wrong."

Calling all statistics, calling all statistics...



 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:49 AM on April 16, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.