danivon wrote:So that is one State, telling kids about the existence of same sex couples. As if they won't have already started to notice if there are any around them.
No, it's not one state. No, I won't google it for you. You don't have to believe me. Bet me. I can use the cash.
Do you object to kids being taught about other things that exist but you believe are immoral?
1. Someone's psychological dysfunction (in many cases--see Bruce Jenner) is not "something that exists." It certainly is not something a second-grader can comprehend.
2. The schools are not to teach religion, right? Moral values are inherently religious or anti-religious; certainly sexual mores are more appropriately taught and discussed at home than in schools.
3. Children's minds are not the State's property and/or petri dish.
Yup. Parents are supposed to protect children from their foolish inclinations.
Like believing in Santa or the tooth fairy?
I don't believe either are in the curriculum of California. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I was listening to a radio programme about parents of transsexuals the other day. They were generally not overindulgent fools. Some took years to acknowledge, and hoped it was just a whim, but when did not simply go away, and it was clear that the child was seriously distressed, what are they actually supposed to do?
Depends. It's difficult to make sweeping statements.
However, if a 4 year-old insists he/she is a dragon, a dog, or a superhero, what is a parent to do?
Those questions are not dissimilar. There is the mind of a child and then there is reality.
Force them to dress and act in the "right" gender? Send them to re-education? Disown them?
Some did not accept it. One father sounded devastated as he described how he was losing his daughter but could not see her as anything other than a girl. She is adamant she will transition to male when she can.
Is it also his fault?
Not a situation I can speak about from experience, so I find it hard to judge the parents involved either way. I doubt anyone else here can. Can you, for example?
Children do and say foolish things. Parents who do not correct those foolish things fail as parents.
You're writing as if children who go off on a bender are always right. Prove it.
3. Changing all manner of laws for (at most) 0.03% of the population.
Is the number affected the benchmark for whether laws apply differently? Less than 0.5% of Americans are quadriplegic. Is that enough to have laws to stop discrimination against them and provide government support.
Sorry, but there is no comparison--unless you want to say that being transgendered is a physical handicap, which I would invite you to prove.
I was asking about numbers, in response to your claim that 0.3% is too low to have laws about a group of people. Where is the number at which it is too onerous to pass laws? 0.4%? higher?[/quote]
They are not comparable issues. "Transgendered" people have been using bathrooms for decades with rare issues. The laws don't need to be changed. They can still relieve themselves without new laws.
You may have read it, but I suspect you don't understand it.
Right. Because condescension is an argument.
For a start, it shows that chromosomes (genetic sex) alone do not determine physical sex. Where physical sex is ambiguous, clearly for the individual they may consider themselves to be one gender or the other, or neither.
Psychology alone does not determine physical sex, but that is what we are supposed to accept--that whatever a person believes trumps whatever is physical. Biology is not science; belief is science.
You are welcome to that.
I am not going to argue every single condition because the laws are not about biological conditions, but psychological beliefs.
More to the point, why is it such a problem for you if someone wants to be a different gender?
It's not. It is a problem when someone claims a gender that is other than their physical gender--a grown male prancing about nude claiming he is a woman. In your mind, he's a woman. To the scientific world, he's a man.