'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' authors say as NC school system pulls their book

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/reading-a-book-cant-turn-you-gay-authors-say-as-nc-school-system-pulls-their-book/ar-BByI3f4?li=BBnbcA1

And here I thought it was the colonoscopy that did it.

and the article says it's the "republicans" who are against this. Let's blame them for all societies problems. The trouble I see is that the book promotes something that may cause trouble. To some extent youngsters need to fit in the world they are born into. I know I couldn't show up to work in a pink-tutu and be taken seriously.

And you can't post crap like this and be taken seriously.

Nor can you say anything in this forum and be taken seriously since you are a homophobe and a misogynist, poopstone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 10:55AM by midwestanon.

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...youngsters need to fit in the world
> they are born into.

So don't do anything to change that world, right? Leave it fearful and hateful and unjust and ignorant.

Girls wearing pants was considered heinous cross dressing at the time that it became more popular. Comparing this to a tutu is ridiculous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 11:28PM by Loyalexmo.

I remember when all the girls in grade school wore jeans with side zippers (my wife said THOSE zippers were the work of the devil) and it caused quite a stir when they started wearing front zipper jeans.

pOOPSTONE,i find your comment highly offensive. Being homosexual does not make people unaware of social norms. Your comment is odious and seems to be homophobic.

But a person, especially young person can be gay and fit in! Young people these days are very accepting of gays.

From my experience, what leads to trouble is trying to hide the fact that people are gay. If gay youth do not see positive role models, they feel alone and that they don't fit in. Positive role models and stories make it clear to the youth that they have a place in this world they belong.

It's North Carolina. How surprised should I be?

No, the real concern is that reading a book might make you not fear and hate gays.

+1.0x10^9

+6.02x10^23

There are likely a fair number of families that would simply prefer their first graders learn to count, recite the alphabet, and read simple books about cats, and dogs and giraffes. If a family wants to discuss the issue of cross dressing with their children, perhaps we should allow them to make that decision on their own rather than have a group of educators decide for them under threat of being labeled bigoted homophobic haters should they hesitate to agree.

The only reason to insist a book that normalizes cross dressing into that environment is to further an agenda that has nothing to do with the actual learning experience. I imagine these are the same people who complain that religion is the reason students in the US fall behind their counterparts internationally. They simply are not getting enough material promoting the normalization of homosexuality and cross dressing.

And you wonder why the movement for homeschooling, private, and charter schools continues to grow? Too many educators seem to feel schools are meant to be an incubator for indoctrinating kids into their specific ideology. Those who disagree will continue to vote with their feet.

And I believe this is the point where those of you chime in who are entirely incapable of distinguishing between differing opinions and hatred begin unloading your worn out box of "phobics" and "ists." Remember, anyone who is not entirely for you is entirely against you. There is no room in this world for reasoned disagreement. And I'll award bonus points for the first invocation of "Nazi" due to my suggestion that families, and not educators should have the say on how and when these issues are presented to their children.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 12:07PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Wow, sounds like a terrible first grade--first graders learn a lot more than that these days.

Anyway, did you look up the actual book? It's an anti bullying book about not mocking or bullying other kids for looking or acting different than you. If a family has some major issue with that then yeah, I'd prefer their kid not be in a school with my kid. If they prefer to homeschool that's fine with me, who cares, I don't particularly need kids whose parents are afraid of anti-bullying texts in my kid's life.

Public schools teach things in various ways that people may not agree with. If someone has a differing opinion, that's fine: They're free to choose other schooling options and always have been.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 11:32PM by Loyalexmo.

Loyalexmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, sounds like a terrible first grade--first
> graders learn a lot more than that these days.
>
> Anyway, did you look up the actual book? It's an
> anti bullying book about not mocking or bullying
> other kids for looking or acting different than
> you. If a family has some major issue with that
> then yeah, I'd prefer their kid not be in a school
> with my kid. If they prefer to homeschool that's
> fine with me, who cares, I don't particularly need
> kids whose parents are afraid of anti-bullying
> texts in my kid's life.
>

Is this really your best response? Out of a global choice of "others" to feature in a work against bullying, the selection of a cross dressing child is a purely random choice with no specific moral or political overtones intended? I was born during the day, but not yesterday.

And I see your specific views on inclusion stop short of those that disagree with you. Any family that feels perhaps the educators are inappropriately advancing an agenda fall outside your specific inclusion zone, eh? If some parents express any reservations about presenting a cross dressing child as a normal behavior, you'd prefer your children not play with their children. "No Tommy, you can't play with Jimmy. His parents were hesitant to endorse a text book that promoted cross dressing children as a normative behavior that we should all accept without question. Now run along, or you'll be late for that school assembly teaching you the importance of embracing others that are different than we are."

Please, tell me again the value of that book and the impact it's had on your views.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 01:03AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

"And I see your specific views on inclusion stop short of those that disagree with you."

You're projecting. Stop seeing yourself as persecuted. You're not.

The old, tired 'tolerate my intolerance and include my non inclusion' argument is all you've got, eh? Got it.

The fact is, some kids will dress in dresses. You will encounter that in your lifetime. Telling kids not to bully them for it isn't 'presenting is as entirely normal.' If you think it is, maybe you're the one with the issue.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 02:43PM by Loyalexmo.

little kids play dress up. It doesn't have to be a "cross dressing" kind of reaction on the part of grown ups. And by the way, clothes don't have gender. If adults want to wear clothes designed for the opposite gender, who gives a rat's patootie? It really doesn't hurt anybody else and just please explain how that would lead to any problem in society? (Waiting to "feh" at any discussion of "confusion" - puhleez)

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are likely a fair number of families that
> would simply prefer their first graders learn to
> count, recite the alphabet, and read simple books
> about cats, and dogs and giraffes. If a family
> wants to discuss the issue of cross dressing with
> their children, perhaps we should allow them to
> make that decision on their own rather than have a
> group of educators decide for them under threat of
> being labeled bigoted homophobic haters should
> they hesitate to agree.

Interesting how you take the exact opposite track when it comes to religion in schools.

Yet you're completely willing to ban a book like this which simply tells a sweet little story, and which can also help kids learn to read. Indoctrinating them in ridiculous supernatural fairy tales is just fine, a book that might help them understand their fellow human beings just a tiny bit must not only not be read by teachers, but BANNED altogether. Hm.

> And you wonder why the movement for homeschooling,
> private, and charter schools continues to grow?

Because bigots and creationists don't want their hateful, irrational, idiotic ideas challenged...?

> Too many educators seem to feel schools are meant
> to be an incubator for indoctrinating kids into
> their specific ideology.

Yeah, like religious people. Only here's the thing: the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits the government promoting a religion. Neither is the case about understanding and maybe accepting your fellow human beings.

> Remember, anyone who is not
> entirely for you is entirely against you...

And this is where you trot out your straw-men again.

> There is
> no room in this world for reasoned disagreement.

There's plenty of room for reasoned disagreement. When are you going to start using reasoned disagreement?

> And I'll award bonus points for the first
> invocation of "Nazi" due to my suggestion that
> families, and not educators should have the say on
> how and when these issues are presented to their
> children.

I'll award you bonus points when you stop hypocritically saying things like the above while insisting that it's OK for educators to indoctrinate kids in religion, which is constitutionally prohibited.

But I won't hold my breath.

Exactly. We're all supposed to be ok with Jesus fairy tales and prayer and creationism being taught in schools and 'tolerant' of that and anything less is religious persecution. BUT, if we teach that kids shouldn't bully other kids for cross dressing, it's pushing a political agenda and not being inclusive. Hmm.

TMSH, you want creationism to be presented in schools as viable even though it's been explicitly been disproven over and over. Yet while LGBT kids are scientifically proven to commit suicide less and thrive socially more when they are accepted as they are, we aren't supposed to present THAT as a viable option...

If you believe creationism should be presented as 'just another option,' and normalized, why shouldn't cross-dressing be? What makes it different in your eyes? I could get behind that--let's teach all of those things as morally and scientifically possible and viable. Why don't YOU think that's an option? I'm waiting.

I hope you see the lack of internal logic there. You accuse others of the lack of tolerance that is actually yours and yours alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 02:48PM by Loyalexmo.

The only reason to insist a book that normalizes integrating races into that environment is to further an agenda that has nothing to do with the actual learning experience.

Oh wait.

You'd have fit in great during the Jim Crow era, tmsh. Keep fighting the tide. It doesn't really matter what people prefer, what their values are, what they consider normal, it's just the way things go.

And yes, if you really do believe that cross-dressing is wrong, or being transgender is wrong, or being anything but white is wrong, you can homeschool your children, but doesn't that kind of seem like you're setting them up to fail in a world that is going to scorn and castigate them for being raised with a set of values that are completely counterproductive to the kind of people, places, and situations they are going to encounter in the real world? I suppose if they want to spend their whole life in Backwater bumblefuck Southern Georgia they'll be okay, but if they ever want to emerge from out of their shell and go out into the world with the values of someone other than, say, Bruce R. McKonkie. They are in trouble.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 11:00PM by midwestanon.

I'm always interested in people who claim persecution for their views while demanding that public institutions cater to their own. People did the same thing in every era of social movements and the social movements always win...

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason to insist a book that normalizes
> integrating races into that environment is to
> further an agenda that has nothing to do with the
> actual learning experience.
>
> Oh wait.
>
> You'd have fit in great during the Jim Crow era,
> tmsh. Keep fighting the tide. It doesn't really
> matter what people prefer, what their values are,
> what they consider normal, it's just the way
> things go.
>
> And yes, if you really do believe that
> cross-dressing is wrong, or being transgender is
> wrong, or being anything but white is wrong, you
> can homeschool your children, but doesn't that
> kind of seem like you're setting them up to fail
> in a world that is going to scorn and castigate
> them for being raised with a set of values that
> are completely counterproductive to the kind of
> people, places, and situations they are going to
> encounter in the real world? I suppose if they
> want to spend their whole life in Backwater
> bumblefuck Southern Georgia they'll be okay, but
> if they ever want to emerge from out of their
> shell and go out into the world with the values of
> someone other than, say, Bruce R. McKonkie. They
> are in trouble.


We have a winner! Because a cross dressing child is EXACTLY the same as a black child, so invoke racism because EVERYBODY KNOWS that anybody who hesitates to enthusiastically embrace a cross dressing child as ENTIRELY NORMAL IS A RACIST HOMOPHOBE!

Thank you for answering my call for mindless, vacuous criticism. I was beginning to think nobody would take the bait. Please return to your safe space and await further instructions.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a winner! Because a cross dressing child
> is EXACTLY the same as a black child, so invoke
> racism because EVERYBODY KNOWS that anybody who
> hesitates to enthusiastically embrace a cross
> dressing child as ENTIRELY NORMAL IS A RACIST
> HOMOPHOBE!


First, let's point out your straw-man:
Nobody (including the original book) insisted that the book or its "message" was about "enthusiastically embracing a cross-dressing child as ENTIRELY NORMAL."
Your dishonesty is showing.

Second:
By all means, please explain why a book about a little boy who sometimes wears a dress must be BANNED from ever being read by anyone in any public school, just because some people can't stand little boys who sometimes wear dresses.

Go ahead. We'll listen.
Legal justification would be good, though you likely won't find any.
Religious justification will be, of course, critically examined.

You seem to consistently take the position that if you have a particular religious belief about something, nobody is allowed to ever criticize it. Yet you demand that it be "respected," and that having it is justification for not obeying the law, for discriminating against other human beings, for banning books that your religious belief deems "evil," etc. Putting religious beliefs above the law, above the rights of others, above common decency, and above everything else.

So, by all means, justify your position -- minus the continual straw-men. Why do the religious beliefs of SOME parents allow them to deny other people with different beliefs their rights as to what books they can read? Such parents are already "free" to not read the book, or have the book read to their kids. What justifies denying the book ever being read to anyone in the district, ever?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 11:28AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Hie, just a word of thanks for saying what I would like to say, if I didn't get tied up in frustration quite so easily.

Don't forget using phrases like safe space and a condescending tone, and claiming everyone else is a bigot, because that somehow makes you more right!

Hey TMSH, my example of segregation was exactly that: an example. If you were too stupid to see that, that's your problem. You can put in any issue as a placeholder if you like: teaching creationism, LGBT tolerance, free healthcare, it doesn't matter.

Because it all boils down to the same thing. You're fighting an issue and taking the moral High Ground on something that you're going to lose. The evidence is in my favor, not yours. eventually people did away with segregation, Jim Crow laws were reversed, it isn't legal to teach creationism in public schools (as far as I know ), gay marriage is now legal, and in Most states it's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexuality, maybe in all states, I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Eventually, the transgender issue will pan out the same way. And you'll be left with your thumb up your ass, continuing to take the moral High Ground, delusional in your belief that you are fighting a battle on the basis of what's best for children and society, without ever realizing that it was you who was doing the unethical, immoral, and mean-spirited thing.

Forget about the book for a second. What do you think about a child who comes to school who is transgendered, or just a crossdresser? You don't think that segregating them, or excluding them on some arbitrary basis is any different than racism? So for a teacher to read a book to young children to let them know that it is not okay to exclude or separate or be mean to a child who cross dresses, that's a bad thing?because the opposite message is what we should be instilling in our children?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I was in school I was constantly bombarded with messages about inclusion, and being nice to people who are different, and study the civil rights movement and talked about issues like racism. I don't see how this is fundamentally any different. I was probably too young to appreciate how important those messages were, but it does not make the message any less important. your attempt to make meaningless delineations between the two things makes the message no less important.


All you are is a contrarian. You consistently and constantly take the other side of an issue that you construe as liberal, democratic, leftist, whatever word you want to use, almost without exception. It gets really, really old. It makes you seem insincere and seem like a provocateur, because all you care about is defending a certain political ideology, without examining the ethical or moral ramifications of each specific issue. Never mind what the long-term consequences might be if the things you desired actually came to pass, conservative values need to be preserved!

Stupid...

If you want to live in a religious theocracy that is intolerant of homosexuals, teaches religious nonsense, and restrict freedoms across-the-board, go live in Iran. Other than teaching a religion you no doubt revile, whether publicly, or secretly, it seems just perfect for you.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2017 10:51AM by midwestanon.

Your last sentence is the funniest and truest part of the whole thing. The same folks who claim to hate Islam would actually get along quite well with highly conservative Muslims--more than most of right of center, moderate and liberal America.

and the HB2 mess in North Carolina is really just a sign of fear.

Anyone with common sense knows that simply reading a book can't change your sexuality. As others have said, it might make you less judgemental and not hate or bully another child that is different.

The problem I think is that many rural and ex-urban parts of America that were basically socially unchanged since the early 1960s have undergone rapid social and demographic change just within the last ten to twenty years. Many people from these areas who are are now middle aged grew up in non-diverse social time capsules that were still mostly white, mostly heteronormative, mostly non-immigrant, and mostly Christian. Estate redlining and gerrymandering helped preserve these 1950s enclaves near cities up until today's era.

Every day seems to bring another media report about how religious and social conservatives are attempting to legislate what they consider to be social and cultural norms.

This is impossible.

Augustus tried to do this back in first century ancient Rome with new laws meant to promote marriage and "protect" Roman virtues. It didn't work back then and it won't work now.

O tempora! O mores! How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree? The times they are a-changing'! Children born at the turn of this century are less racist, less religious, more diverse, and more accepting of sexual and gender variances than people born before 1960 or 1980. White Christians are no longer a majority in America and by 2040 whites will be in the minority.

So, Messrs. Poopstone and TMSH, people like you are on their way out. There are less and less of you every year. But there is no need to fear. America is not a race or a religion. America is a dream. America has always been an evolving work in progress. The America of 1790 wasn't the same as the America of 1860 or 1960 and the America of 2020 or 2040 will also be different -- but it will still be America.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2017 07:03AM by anybody.

The only thing that I was taught about homosexuality in the small, rural town in which I was raised was that my father would extend a pinky finger into the air, and say, "one of those kinds." If I asked what he meant, he wouldn't answer. I reached the age of 18 without knowing anything about LGBTQ people, at all.

If there were non-straight children in my classes, I was unaware of them. The stories I can recall from first grade are religious, some Disney, and that's about it.

I can, however, recall the hate served me at that age, and even in kindergarten, dished by the Eastern Star and their ilk. Never heard of it? It's the "female" arm of Masonry, much like the RS, but with more internal power. It was in the sixties, middle of Nowhere, America.

Most all of the children in the town belonged to the only church in town, a Methodist church, and were the children of Masons and Northern Stars. Whatever these associations claim to be now, I can tell you in graphic detail the abuse I suffered at the hands of adults and children. I remember those stories, because they were real events. I didn't understand why at the time, but knew that I was in some hideous, monstrous way, the "other," the "different" one.

Five decades ago, and I can still recall the pain of being excluded, and can now point to the multitude of opportunities freely presented to other children, but denied to me. I can see the ways that it influenced my choices, and sent an already introverted child into a world of lonliness and isolation.

Fast forward to adulthood. I learned about the ways in which non-straight people suffer in our society, largely at the hands of religion. No one can convince me that it is "traditional family values under attack," already having been convinced that those whom cling to that phrase are the actual attackers. They bring the death of a thousand cuts, and gleefully watch their victims bleed. Every slammed door and denigrating word is a drop of blood to be celebrated and added to the buckets of pain poured into their moats, warning others not to venture in.

The problem, as I see it, is not that they practice their filth privately. It's that the stench of hate and exclusivity follows them into public realms. They leave their infested castles, and seek to spread their infections among the innocent. Let them have their hate, but keep it out of the public arena. Freedom is not free, they like to say.

With that, I would agree.

I'd love to hear more of your story. Do you have more of it posted here somewhere?

Thank you both; your support carries weight for me.

I post portions of my stories here and elsewhere, but anonymously. Invisibility remains the greater comfort, and I appreciate those for whom that is not the case.

I often wonder what life is like for someone who is gay growing up even still in this society, let alone the LDS church. I was told back in 1983 when I first found out he is gay that he was damned if he didn't CHANGE. Not acting on it wasn't an option. He had to change.

That was beyond my comprehension, so I can't begin to imagine what it is like for gays in mormonism. What they do to gays is ______ I can't even think of a good enough word to express what I'm thinking.

Despicable?

Horrific?

Mindlessly hateful? (Sorry, two words)

Shameful?

Twisted?

Vicious?

Incomprehensible?

Evil?

What we need is one handy word that combines all of the above.

I know that some Mormons are not so deeply nasty, otherwise, I'd nominate "Mormon." On the other hand, they do allow the nastiness to continue, instead of speaking out in every meeting and service....