OMFG... just No... OMG...

[mynameisbob84]

Bullet points cos shit is getting ugly, yo...

- Homosexuality is not something that can be "encouraged", only accepted. Its not like Careers Day where a classroom of kids all wanted to be doctors and nurses but upon seeing all the careers available to them, decided to be lawyers and construction workers and pro wrestlers instead and now the future faces a shortage of doctors and nurses. Accepting and celebrating homosexuality merely makes it easier for homosexuals to enjoy their day to day life without being persecuted. Its not going to increase the number of homosexuals (though it may make more homosexuals feel safe enough to be open about their sexuality to their friends and families) because homosexuality is not a learned behaviour. Its a result of biological make-up. You're either born gay or you're not, and all the acceptance nor all the bigotry in the world will never change that.

- The world is over-populated as it is and our resources are already spread too thin (or at least disproportionately). If accepting homosexuality did somehow slow reproduction (it wouldn't) then would that truly be a bad thing anyway?

- Despite what I asked earlier, I can accept that Kitsune isn't a troll. The problem is that she holds all the views that a troll might purport to hold. As an example, this forum occasionally gets an infestation of anti-cam girl trolls, yeah? Disgruntled members who sign up and post screed after screed about cam girls being x, y, and z and not deserving of their money and whatever else. When this happens, poo gets flung at them. If someone came along who held all of those anti-cam girl views but expressed them politely with pie charts and sources, but still made post after post about how cam girls are a detriment to society - not because they were trolling but because they truly believed it to be true, and were happy to politely put across their point and back up their point with what they felt were pertinent facts and figures that backed up what they were saying - I dare say they would still get shit-rated and would probably be banned, because ultimately, this is a forum for cam girls.

The problem with Kitsune's posts is that unlike the anti-cam girl poster, she has the right to post her views here, even if the majority disagree with her (and to be clear, I don't think that should change. I think the fact that Amber so rarely steps in when things get heated lends itself to more interesting discussions, and that's a good thing). Because while this is a forum that kind of doubles as a safe place for cam girls, it's not specifically intended to be a safe place for people who oppose racism, xenophobia, Islamaphobia, homophobia, transphobia, and bigotry. And that's where Kitsune's poop-ratings come in. Just as a cam girl might shit-rate a post that, no matter how politely and no matter how well-intentioned, dispenses with anti-cam girl rhetoric, there are members here who will do the same with any post that dispenses with rhetoric that is by definition, bigoted.

Not saying the poo-flinging is right, just trying to highlight why it happens while attempting to contextualize why it probably shouldn't, no matter how understandable a response it is.

 

[Mila_]

oh look, there's a train! Looks like it's going too fast... Oh shit! It just hit that other train and came off the tracks in a big fiery mess!
I feel like this thread is entertaining in the same way...

@Kitsune we have a growing population. Actually the world is too populated, so I wouldn't worry so much about a few people choosing not to have children. In fact seeing as we have diminishing resources and problems of global warming and global economic disaster coming from too many people over populating and therefore consuming, not having children is actually a great thing for society!
You have a very old fashioned view of things that just isn't valid anymore, especially as people live and work for longer and women work more which means we have plenty of people filling in jobs! We've got more people now than the baby boom period so I really don't get your point...
We've always had people in society who don't have children and they provide lots of value. It's a very normal, natural thing, historically your point would only work in an under populated society where you need all the children you can get, but I still wouldn't say those with no children are a drain on society.
More of a drain is those who have children but can't afford/care for them.

As for the Troll attempts ratings... I disagree with what you're saying but you are saying your beliefs. I like people to be able to talk about things that aren't so politically correct. It makes for interesting discussion.

What I will say though is you have held your guns so religiously and haven't really written anything new except occasionally letting it slip how deeply your homophobia runs. You continue to completely derail the thread into something that a lot of people are saying they don't find relevant, but causes such a reaction that people feel inclined to answer. So on that subject yes it is getting a little Troll like... I know it's not your intention but it has resulted in something similar so I can understand why some people rated that.
A discussion is usually when you take into account other peoples views, on either side. I've seen others take into account your views but I haven't see much evidence you've really listened to what others are trying to say.

I have listened to what everyone said on this thread and tried to address their points when I felt like I had something interesting to add to the conversation or when I felt like I was being misunderstood and had to clarify my point. But I feel like the problem you and a couple others who claim "you don't listen!" have with me is that I don't simply change my views to echo yours... or shut up. But the fact that two people disagree even after explaining why each feels the way they do doesn't mean they aren't listening to each other. It means that neither found the other view compelling enough. And that is okay!

I am not a homophobe. What does "homophobia" even mean? It is just a buzzword. I personally respect, value, and defend everyone's right to exercise their sexuality as they please without being coerced, forced or attacked for it, so I don't consider myself someone who hates gay people. If all it takes for you to call someone a "homophobe" is not celebrating homosexuality or joining a Gay Pride Parade then your term doesn't mean much. I don't celebrate obesity either, or smoking, or diabetes. That doesn't mean I hate the people who suffer from it.

As of fertility... you aren't using the same paradigm as me. Or at least that is what I infer from your post. If you are talking about overpopulation you must be talking about the planet as a whole, as in... the planet itself is overpopulated. The problem with this approach is population is not a zero sum game. Almost half of the entire world's population is in China and India. And the continents with the fastest population growth are Africa and South America, some countries in Central Africa have a fertility rate of 9. That is 9 children per couple on average. But the West and Japan are actually shrinking, I believe there isn't a single country in the EU that surpasses 1.8 fertily rate. When I talk about society I talk about each individual nation. If ACF was a chinese forum I wouldn't be talking about gay people, or childfree couples being a problem because there are so many chinese that it will hardly ever be a problem. The future of their society is guaranteed as of today. It isn't the same with the West.

If the West stops reproducing or the trend continues the way it is going, then the West will disappear, and it will do nothing for the planet overpopulation problem because the continents with a problematic population growth will continue to reproduce at the same rate. If you care about your society, your people, and your way of life, you should support the encouragement of having big families in media and schools which is the only way that your society could curb it's decline.

As for the subject of derailing the thread you are right and I apologize. I didn't do it on purpose, I have explained before how homosexuality got dragged into the discussion, and it seemed like someone people wanted to debate so I naturally replied to the people mentioning me. But you are right, the thread was about incest so I wont post more on this topic unless someone mentions me or quotes me again and I feel like I have something to explain.

 

[Ms_Diane]

I am not a homophobe. What does "homophobia" even mean? It is just a buzzword. I personally respect, value, and defend everyone's right to exercise their sexuality as they please without being coerced, forced or attacked for it, so I don't consider myself someone who hates gay people. If all it takes for you to call someone a "homophobe" is not celebrating homosexuality or joining a Gay Pride Parade then your term doesn't mean much. I don't celebrate obesity either, or smoking, or diabetes. That doesn't mean I hate the people who suffer from it.

I think maybe you do not realize that what you have been saying is much more than not celebrating lgbt people. You have said their lifestyles are unhealthy and should not be viewed in a positive light in schools and the media. You have compared them to drug addicts and described them as a burden to society. Please consider that these views are strongly anti-gay, whether you are speaking in hypotheticals or not. Also please consider that these views are harmful to lgbt people, their children and their families which is what I was trying to explain earlier. I think if you are able to consider why people are saying your views are homophobic, then maybe you will understand why you got the reaction you got. Homophobia is not a buzzword. If you would like to know what it means, instead of flippantly saying that people use that word when it is fashionable, you have the whole internet at your fingertips. It is a term that comes from very real issues that involve violence, discrimination and oppression. By stating that you don't think it is a real thing actually shows a disregard for gay people's experiences, so it comes across as though you don't really respect everyone's right to exercise their sexuality at all. Perhaps you do not realize that you have been doing this, and that's why the negative reaction from others was such a surprise to you. What you have been saying is much more than "not celebrating homosexuality or joining a gay pride parade."

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I have listened to what everyone said on this thread and tried to address their points when I felt like I had something interesting to add to the conversation or when I felt like I was being misunderstood and had to clarify my point. But I feel like the problem you and a couple others who claim "you don't listen!" have with me is that I don't simply change my views to echo yours... or shut up. But the fact that two people disagree even after explaining why each feels the way they do doesn't mean they aren't listening to each other. It means that neither found the other view compelling enough. And that is okay!

I am not a homophobe. What does "homophobia" even mean? It is just a buzzword. I personally respect, value, and defend everyone's right to exercise their sexuality as they please without being coerced, forced or attacked for it, so I don't consider myself someone who hates gay people. If all it takes for you to call someone a "homophobe" is not celebrating homosexuality or joining a Gay Pride Parade then your term doesn't mean much. I don't celebrate obesity either, or smoking, or diabetes. That doesn't mean I hate the people who suffer from it.

As of fertility... you aren't using the same paradigm as me. Or at least that is what I infer from your post. If you are talking about overpopulation you must be talking about the planet as a whole, as in... the planet itself is overpopulated. The problem with this approach is population is not a zero sum game. Almost half of the entire world's population is in China and India. And the continents with the fastest population growth are Africa and South America, some countries in Central Africa have a fertility rate of 9. That is 9 children per couple on average. But the West and Japan are actually shrinking, I believe there isn't a single country in the EU that surpasses 1.8 fertily rate. When I talk about society I talk about each individual nation. If ACF was a chinese forum I wouldn't be talking about gay people, or childfree couples being a problem because there are so many chinese that it will hardly ever be a problem. The future of their society is guaranteed as of today. It isn't the same with the West.

If the West stops reproducing or the trend continues the way it is going, then the West will disappear, and it will do nothing for the planet overpopulation problem because the continents with a problematic population growth will continue to reproduce at the same rate. If you care about your society, your people, and your way of life, you should support the encouragement of having big families in media and schools which is the only way that your society could curb it's decline.

As for the subject of derailing the thread you are right and I apologize. I didn't do it on purpose, I have explained before how homosexuality got dragged into the discussion, and it seemed like someone people wanted to debate so I naturally replied to the people mentioning me. But you are right, the thread was about incest so I wont post more on this topic unless someone mentions me or quotes me again and I feel like I have something to explain.

This is an international forum so why wouldn't we be talking globally? I live in England and we definitely have too many people, it's not such a problem at the moment but it could be a big issue.
Also people emigrate from India and China to other countries. Are these people not good enough because they haven't got western origin? So long as people are reproducing it's all good I'm my opinion.

A phobia isn't about hate, it's about fear. Homophobia is fear of gay people. It can be in a range of spectrums.

Now I don't know you so I don't know what's in your heart. But from your posts you sound very fearful of people being gay and what they do to the community. You do not sound remotely pro gay and I doubt anyone pro gay would say those things.
It's like my grandparents saying they aren't racist but you know they are, they're just in denial to try and fit in socially. It's not always about hate, it's usually about fear and ignorance.
Same with sexists who deny being sexist while still holding the ingrained belief that women are less than men.
No one wants to admit to this stuff, especially to themselves.

You may not be aware that you are a homophobe but I can't really see someone saying those things who isn't. I know it has a lot of stigma on the word and I don't mean it as an insult. But maybe something you should think about.
You sound like someone who's been taught a certain attitude and are parroting without really realising the implications of your words and how they'll be taken.

This is, I'm pretty sure why people are facepalming at your posts. This is what people seem to be trying to get across.

Like, I don't think it's cool you don't like gay people or think they're somehow lesser citizens or are really messed up, but it's cool you have your own views, or agree with the views you've been taught. And it's good that you feel you can express yourself even when faced with others disagreeing. But changing your opinion isn't a weakness, it's a strength and a human right. I respect people who can look at themselves and go "actually, you're right, I may be being unfairly biased. I'll try and educate myself with an open mind and see if anything changes." you don't have to change your opinion, but showing a willingness would be cool. A debate/discussion that's just about people preaching their opinions and no one is willing to sway an inch isn't a discussion. It's talking at eachother, even if you read the other person's point of view, all you're doing is arguing the points they made rather than learning from the other poi. For a good discussion you need some flexibility so you can then come to a group conclusion, even if it's not your initial reaction.
This social ability is why we've evolved so far as a race, it shouldn't be discredited for the sake of ego.

Anyway I'm not trying to get at you out be mean, I don't have anything personal against you, it's just not how I work. I'm just pointing out, your attitude can be kinda toxic to society and is pretty offensive to a lot of people. It might be cool in your area, I know homophobia and racism is really common in some parts of the states so it may seem normal, but it's not that common in other western countries and it's definitely not usually acceptable to talk about so casually.

 

[Mila_]

I think maybe you do not realize that what you have been saying is much more than not celebrating lgbt people. You have said their lifestyles are unhealthy and should not be viewed in a positive light in schools and the media. You have compared them to drug addicts and described them as a burden to society. Please consider that these views are strongly anti-gay, whether you are speaking in hypotheticals or not. Also please consider that these views are harmful to lgbt people, their children and their families which is what I was trying to explain earlier. I think if you are able to consider why people are saying your views are homophobic, then maybe you will understand why you got the reaction you got. Homophobia is not a buzzword. If you would like to know what it means, instead of flippantly saying that people use that word when it is fashionable, you have the whole internet at your fingertips. It is a term that comes from very real issues that involve violence, discrimination and oppression. By stating that you don't think it is a real thing actually shows a disregard for gay people's experiences, so it comes across as though you don't really respect everyone's right to exercise their sexuality at all. Perhaps you do not realize that you have been doing this, and that's why the negative reaction from others was such a surprise to you. What you have been saying is much more than "not celebrating homosexuality or joining a gay pride parade."

Well the difference between you and me is that I am okay with the truth and I believe the truth should be upheld regardless of the feelings of the people involved. I am a camgirl and I believe porn isn't entirely healthy for society. I still cam even when I know that it isn't entirely kosher. I can take that some of the things that I do are a drag to society and I try to contribute in other ways to make up for it. But what I do not do is lie or warp reality to justify what I do so I get to spare my feelings. Does that mean I hate myself? No. Does that mean I am afraid of myself or other camgirls or porn actors/actresses? No. Does this mean that I want camgirls or porn actors to be prosecuted, or attacked, or denigrated? No. Does it mean I want the government to make it illegal? No. But do I have to be in favor of girls and boys being taught in school that being a porn actress is just as good as being an engineer or an architect or a doctor? No. I do not want kids to be taught that this is a desirable career because in all honesty I don't think it is healthy for impressionable kids to be taught that. And this doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me someone capable of seeing the risks and the problems of sex work even though I am a SW myself.

I have no problems with you saying that I am not pro-gay. I am certainly not pro-gay. I am also not anti-gay. I don't see this as a struggle. I am simply someone who understands that being gay isn't all rainbows and sunshine, that there are issues involved for both the individual and society at large. So when it comes to gay people I am all up for defending their right to be safe and do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but I do not have to be okay with things like the one I will show you next.

Please explain to me please how this is okay? And why I need to be okay with this if I don't want to be labeled a bigot. This is an educational material that is being distributed to elementary school children in some schools in North Carolina. Children 7 to 12 are supposed to fill in the blanks of their Gender Unicorn and question their own gender identity, gender expression, "sex assigned at birth" who they are sexually attracted to, and romantically attracted to:



Children aged 7 to 12. Kids at these ages are not sexually attracted to anyone. They aren't mature enough to even understand what "gender identity" or "gender expression" means. And what you manage with this is make them second guess everything they feel and try to put themselves in one of these boxes, instead of letting them develop their interests naturally.

When I was a small child (around 6 or 7 years old I would say) I definitely had a phase of wondering what it would be like to be a boy. Part of it was probably my mom who wished she had a boy instead of a girl, part of it was the fact that I didn't always get along with girls so great and was always hanging out with my boy cousins. I never really felt like "a girl" until I developed when I was 14. Before then I never really felt like "a girl" since I didn't like playing with dolls or doing any of the traditionally female activities girls in my class were into. But after I developed I started to crush on boys and take care of my appearance, and started doing feminine activities like baking and knitting and enjoying those immensely. My point is maybe I wouldn't have done the same thing if I was pushed from a young age to fill in The Gender Unicorn and question my feelings every step of the way. Maybe I would have concluded from a young age that I was probably a boy inside since I was so different and I might have built my identity around that idea simply because adults around me would encourage me to it. And maybe by the time I developed I would be quite confused and thinking that I was something I was not. Which could have led me to a lot of problems and unnecessary heartbreak.

So yeah, protip - kids have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM, and when you teach them these things they're just going to act like a special snowflake to get attention. A whole generation of kids is growing with things like these and I do not doubt that we will see a sharp increase in homosexuality, transsexuality, and other similar disorders even if they realize 10 years later that it was "just a phase" how much time and energy will be wasted by making everyone second guess their own feelings through childhood, puberty and adolescence.

 

[JickyJuly]

If the birthrate falls anywhere, it would pretty much never be attributed to not having enough men in rotation. Dudes can procreate from puberty until death and make children anytime they have sex if it's the right day for their partner. Nature has a safety net in place so that a few men can date men and lots of men can be passed over by women looking to make families. There probably are things in our society that we're accepting that ARE cutting birthrates. The biggest that I can think of is low paying jobs. If both parents are going to need to work just to afford the bare minimum and put their kid in daycare, what's the point?

 

[Dani Picas]

As far as the over population thing goes.. I kinda think that maybe homosexuality and also women not wanting babies as much is natures own way of organising itself.
Like, before we all had lots of kids and many would die because of medical and environmental issues that we have solved today. Eg. The flu, hooping cough, chicken pox, drought, etc etc.
But now, we are healthy as hell and not everyone has children because of choice, not forced upon them circumstances.
I think it is good. And I also think more of us should restrain from procreating because the issues arrising due to over population are ridiculous.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Even if I highly disagree with @Kitsune on well... pretty much everything, I hope she never stops posting.

This is currently my favorite thread, and I'm not heated or pissed off I'm just mentally stimulated and engaged. (ok maybe a few things got my heart rate thumping for a sec haha)

And to be fair, even if @Kitsune IS a troll, she's a really really good one. LOL

 

[LuckySmiles]

Well the difference between you and me is that I am okay with the truth and I believe the truth should be upheld regardless of the feelings of the people involved. I am a camgirl and I believe porn isn't entirely healthy for society. I still cam even when I know that it isn't entirely kosher. I can take that some of the things that I do are a drag to society and I try to contribute in other ways to make up for it. But what I do not do is lie or warp reality to justify what I do so I get to spare my feelings. Does that mean I hate myself? No. Does that mean I am afraid of myself or other camgirls or porn actors/actresses? No. Does this mean that I want camgirls or porn actors to be prosecuted, or attacked, or denigrated? No. Does it mean I want the government to make it illegal? No. But do I have to be in favor of girls and boys being taught in school that being a porn actress is just as good as being an engineer or an architect or a doctor? No. I do not want kids to be taught that this is a desirable career because in all honesty I don't think it is healthy for impressionable kids to be taught that. And this doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me someone capable of seeing the risks and the problems of sex work even though I am a SW myself.

I have no problems with you saying that I am not pro-gay. I am certainly not pro-gay. I am also not anti-gay. I don't see this as a struggle. I am simply someone who understands that being gay isn't all rainbows and sunshine, that there are issues involved for both the individual and society at large. So when it comes to gay people I am all up for defending their right to be safe and do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but I do not have to be okay with things like the one I will show you next.

Please explain to me please how this is okay? And why I need to be okay with this if I don't want to be labeled a bigot. This is an educational material that is being distributed to elementary school children in some schools in North Carolina. Children 7 to 12 are supposed to fill in the blanks of their Gender Unicorn and question their own gender identity, gender expression, "sex assigned at birth" who they are sexually attracted to, and romantically attracted to:

View attachment 64979

Children aged 7 to 12. Kids at these ages are not sexually attracted to anyone. They aren't mature enough to even understand what "gender identity" or "gender expression" means. And what you manage with this is make them second guess everything they feel and try to put themselves in one of these boxes, instead of letting them develop their interests naturally.

When I was a small child (around 6 or 7 years old I would say) I definitely had a phase of wondering what it would be like to be a boy. Part of it was probably my mom who wished she had a boy instead of a girl, part of it was the fact that I didn't always get along with girls so great and was always hanging out with my boy cousins. I never really felt like "a girl" until I developed when I was 14. Before then I never really felt like "a girl" since I didn't like playing with dolls or doing any of the traditionally female activities girls in my class were into. But after I developed I started to crush on boys and take care of my appearance, and started doing feminine activities like baking and knitting and enjoying those immensely. My point is maybe I wouldn't have done the same thing if I was pushed from a young age to fill in The Gender Unicorn and question my feelings every step of the way. Maybe I would have concluded from a young age that I was probably a boy inside since I was so different and I might have built my identity around that idea simply because adults around me would encourage me to it. And maybe by the time I developed I would be quite confused and thinking that I was something I was not. Which could have led me to a lot of problems and unnecessary heartbreak.

So yeah, protip - kids have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM, and when you teach them these things they're just going to act like a special snowflake to get attention. A whole generation of kids is growing with things like these and I do not doubt that we will see a sharp increase in homosexuality, transsexuality, and other similar disorders even if they realize 10 years later that it was "just a phase" how much time and energy will be wasted by making everyone second guess their own feelings through childhood, puberty and adolescence.

Off topic a bit but THIS SO HARD. I was a very eccentric child. I also had more male influence than female influence for a big chunk of time in my childhood.
(Father taking on more of the at home roles while mother working more as well as brothers being around more than sisters)

So I liked baseball instead of barbie. I spent time with my older brother selling Kool-Aid in the summer (yes kool-aid not lemonade,so ghetto...) instead of playing pretend games.

I spent a week one time when I was a kid tucking all my long hair until a baseball hat that I'd put on from the second I woke up til I went to sleep. (I eventually got a rash on my forehead, and a family member's solution was at the hospital they worked to have me chat with one of the doctors who was like "yep it's the hat")
And I gave it up. But I would have eventually anyways. I'm one hundred percent girl but when I think back of all the out there stuff I did as a kid, I'm so grateful for having the parents I did and the time I grew up in. They didn't say like stop hiding your hair like a little boy, they just let me be a kid, and didn't acknowledge it/encourage it. I cried one time when I realized I'd probably never get to play 1st base for the New York Yankees. I didn't want to BE a boy.. but I was very envious of a "boy thing."

So when I see certain stuff with children in schools now it freaks me out a bit. That is NOT transphobia. If someone convinced me some of the things I was doing when I was a child because I was really meant to be a little boy I might have believed them! But I would have been totally wrong.

You can be cool with all people and all kinds of everything, without encouraging it. That's not anything close to the same as saying something is bad, people that are a certain way are bad, or that you are afraid of it. That's the way I've seen some of the things @Kitsune has been saying here, and I don't see it coming from a place of hate/ignorance/intolerance.

 

[JickyJuly]

I went to the page that created that unicorn to see what its purpose is. It looks like it's a group that reaches out to teachers to help them understand LGBT students. Teachers who have students from puberty on might find that helpful, and an understanding teacher can transform futures. I might be misunderstanding their page. But, it looks to be sensitivity training for teachers (ie let's not get the school sued because a 50 year old teacher doesn't know the word "tranny" is a slur). http://www.transstudent.org/services
http://www.transstudent.org/services
I don't think anyone would support asking children who they're sexually or emotionally attracted to in a school assignment. I'd be angry out my ears and not out of fear of turning my kids into anything. It just disrespects their privacy in an extreme way.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

When I was a small child (around 6 or 7 years old I would say) I.........My point is maybe I wouldn't have done the same thing if I was pushed from a young age to fill in The Gender Unicorn and question my feelings every step of the way.....Which could have led me to a lot of problems and unnecessary heartbreak.

So yeah, protip - kids have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM, and when you teach them these things they're just going to act like a special snowflake to get attention. A whole generation of kids is growing with things like these and I do not doubt that we will see a sharp increase in homosexuality, transsexuality, and other similar disorders even if they realize 10 years later that it was "just a phase" how much time and energy will be wasted by making everyone second guess their own feelings through childhood, puberty and adolescence.

Spoiler: Courtesy spoiler

I was apparently born heterosexual. When I was in first grade, I had my first heterosexual encounter with a classmate. More curiousity than anything I suppose. Second grade I had my first real romantic crush. Of course, at this age it wasn't really sexual, just a case of puppy love (I still go check up on her every now and then on FB ).

This took place in an environment that strongly encouraged monogamous heterosexual relationships. Anything that fell outside of that was strongly discouraged. We were at war. The immoral had an agenda. They had a sickness. They were a threat to society...

Now, I have never felt an attraction to another man. I have never fallen in love with another man. But let me tell you what I did do. I woke up one day, and saw myself as a woman. It was like a switch in my head flipped. Started crossdressing. Hunted around trying to find where to buy hormones on the black market (thank God that wasn't successful XD). I went out and had anonymous sex with men. This went on for somewhere between 6 months to a year.

Did I enjoy it? Not in the least. It was both distressing and disgusting to me, even while I was doing it. Yet I was compelled nonetheless.

I didn't do this because of bipolar mania, or because of BPD/PTSD. I didn't do this because a gay friend opened my eyes to what homophobia looks like from the other side. I didn't do this because of the educational outreach efforts on the part of a Homosexual Agenda in the form of a "gender unicorn". I didn't do this because I stole a pair of my grandmothers nylons once in an attempt to keep warm.

I didn't do it because I was trained to be a strong Christian soldier, or because I was certain the world would be a better place if everyone would just be good little Conservatives (both of which I was).

I did it because I was afraid. Terrified.

This conclusion is not based on "maybe's" or "might have's" or "could have led to's".

The people who taught me to fear spoke the same language as @Kitsune.

As a heterosexual male, I have to wonder what my life would have been like if I had been raised in an environment that wasn't decidedly unhealthy.

I have witnessed homosexuals promoting their lifestyle in a (sometimes humorously) distasteful manner. Pales in comparison to their opponents.

Even if I highly disagree with @Kitsune on well... pretty much everything, I hope she never stops posting.

This is currently my favorite thread, and I'm not heated or pissed off I'm just mentally stimulated and engaged. (ok maybe a few things got my heart rate thumping for a sec haha)

And to be fair, even if @Kitsune IS a troll, she's a really really good one. LOL

Edited, so that I could say I agree 100%.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Well the difference between you and me is that I am okay with the truth and I believe the truth should be upheld regardless of the feelings of the people involved. I am a camgirl and I believe porn isn't entirely healthy for society. I still cam even when I know that it isn't entirely kosher. I can take that some of the things that I do are a drag to society and I try to contribute in other ways to make up for it. But what I do not do is lie or warp reality to justify what I do so I get to spare my feelings. Does that mean I hate myself? No. Does that mean I am afraid of myself or other camgirls or porn actors/actresses? No. Does this mean that I want camgirls or porn actors to be prosecuted, or attacked, or denigrated? No. Does it mean I want the government to make it illegal? No. But do I have to be in favor of girls and boys being taught in school that being a porn actress is just as good as being an engineer or an architect or a doctor? No. I do not want kids to be taught that this is a desirable career because in all honesty I don't think it is healthy for impressionable kids to be taught that. And this doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me someone capable of seeing the risks and the problems of sex work even though I am a SW myself.

First of all, you were not born a sex worker, nor did you develop your sex work career and persona before or during puberty. You also choose to be a sex worker, so once again your analogy is confusing and makes it difficult to figure out what exactly you are trying to say.

What I do understand from what you said is, for you the truth is that being gay is too risky and problematic and kids should be protected from it, the way they should be protected from sex work, even if that hurts some some gay kids feelings? You are not referring to self-harm and suicide I assume? I was more worried about that than anyone's feelings. I wasn't worried about the truth either, more about your opinions that are at the root of why LGBT kids are bullied, which leads to high rates of self-harm and suicide. But then your truth is that that's happening because those kids have a disorder, not because they are being bullied. So you are not okay with promoting homosexuality but you are okay with promoting internalized oppression. Do you also think that there is no truth to internalized oppression? Do you disagree with the DSM and the ICD?

I have no problems with you saying that I am not pro-gay. I am certainly not pro-gay. I am also not anti-gay. I don't see this as a struggle. I am simply someone who understands that being gay isn't all rainbows and sunshine, that there are issues involved for both the individual and society at large. So when it comes to gay people I am all up for defending their right to be safe and do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, but I do not have to be okay with things like the one I will show you next.

Please explain to me please how this is okay? And why I need to be okay with this if I don't want to be labeled a bigot.

I don't think you are a bigot if you think this is inappropriate for kids 7-12 years old. Up until now we have not been talking about the specifics of how different school boards address sexuality and gender identity in the classroom. So far you have been saying in a general way that being gay should not be encouraged in schools. So, I am trying to understand what you are saying by using this example. I think you see this example as as part of a larger problem of "encouraging homosexuality" in schools. Correct me if I am wrong about that. I agree with you about this in the sense that I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to make kids do a school assignment where they have to fill out a worksheet about their sexual identity. But I do think kids should be encouraged to be themselves. And you even said something above about letting them develop their interests naturally, which I totally agree with. However, what you have been saying throughout this thread is that being gay or trans should not be presented in a positive light, and that gay tendencies are bad for society, and that certainly comes across as believing homosexuality should be discouraged. Please clarify this if I you can. When you say it should not be portrayed in a positive way, how should it be portrayed? Should it be referred to neutrally or not at all or should kids be cautioned against it? Or maybe there is some other way you would portray it? You often try to use examples or hypotheticals to explain your view which I find makes things more convoluted and harder to understand your point, and would rather you just say what you mean than go into a complicated analogy. I know you are just trying to explain it, but it makes me more confused about what you are trying to say.

The thing is, it seems you finally did say what you think about LGBT people. You think homosexuality is a disorder (quoted below). So you can see why it comes across as though you think being gay should be discouraged and portrayed negatively in schools so that kids won't be gay. And this is also why I called your views anti-gay. Calling it a disorder is also not "defending their right to be safe" as you stated above. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but again, labeling homosexuality as a disorder is not truth-based, and is an anti-gay view and these views you are expressing are at the root of LGBT bullying and self-harm. I imagine it is not your intention, but your views are the same views that stigmatize gay people which leads to bullying and other kinds of discrimination. This is why I cannot accept your statement that you defend their right to be safe. You are adding to the rhetoric that supports stigma and violence, even if it is unintentional.

I do not doubt that we will see a sharp increase in homosexuality, transsexuality, and other similar disorders even if they realize 10 years later that it was "just a phase" how much time and energy will be wasted by making everyone second guess their own feelings through childhood, puberty and adolescence.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The thing is, it seems you finally did say what you think about LGBT people. You think homosexuality is a disorder (quoted below). So you can see why it comes across as though you think being gay should be discouraged and portrayed negatively in schools so that kids won't be gay. And this is also why I called your views anti-gay. Calling it a disorder is also not "defending their right to be safe" as you stated above. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but again, labeling homosexuality as a disorder is not truth-based, and is an anti-gay view and these views you are expressing are at the root of LGBT bullying and self-harm. I imagine it is not your intention, but your views are the same views that stigmatize gay people which leads to bullying and other kinds of discrimination. This is why I cannot accept your statement that you defend their right to be safe. You are adding to the rhetoric that supports stigma and violence, even if it is unintentional.

Couldn't agree more.

As for the Gender Unicorn. Supposedly released to combat bullying. Personally I think it's tacky as hell. It did not, however, spring up just because the LGBTOMGWTF movement decided to take over the world and wreck society (which is what many opposed to it seem to think).

Here is the thing though. As my disgust for @Kitsune views has grown, there has been a corresponding increase in my disgust for the idea of sending the mother/son in the original story to prison for 18 months.

Vote changed.

 

[LuckySmiles]

You often try to use examples or hypotheticals to explain your view which I find makes things more convoluted and harder to understand your point, and would rather you just say what you mean than go into a complicated analogy. I know you are just trying to explain it, but it makes me more confused about what you are trying to say.

.

Disagree with this part a lot a lot. People shouldn't have to constantly go out of their way to prove they're not a terrible person every time they disagree with someone who is trying to assign some sort of hidden agenda or problem with their perspective. One way to avoid this is to remove yourself and others from personal involvement with broader, more general or universally relatable examples. That can make it easier to detach peoples personal feelings from your argument. But that never seems to work on some people, so after that you have to share personal examples and stories to appeal to emotional perspectives so that people can better understand.

But that's kind of a waste of time. It's easier and more reasonable to assume no one, on an adult forum of webcammers and enthusiasts, is coming from a place of hate and ignorance, just because something they said vaguely reminds you of something a hateful person said at some other point in time.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Disagree with this part a lot a lot. People shouldn't have to constantly go out of their way to prove they're not a terrible person every time they disagree with someone who is trying to assign some sort of hidden agenda or problem with their perspective. One way to avoid this is to remove yourself and others from personal involvement with broader, more general or universally relatable examples. That can make it easier to detach peoples personal feelings from your argument. But that never seems to work on some people, so after that you have to share personal examples and stories to appeal to emotional perspectives so that people can better understand.

But that's kind of a waste of time. It's easier and more reasonable to assume no one, on an adult forum of webcammers and enthusiasts, is coming from a place of hate and ignorance, just because something they said vaguely reminds you of something a hateful person said at some other point in time.

I don't disagree that sometimes examples and analogies can be helpful, but in this thread I am finding the hypotheticals and examples are making it more complicated, and maybe that is just me. That's why I suggested trying to explain without. I do not think @Kitsune is a terrible person for disagreeing with me, I am trying really hard not to take anything personally and also not get personal with any of my comments. I don't think I have, but it is hard because it is a personal issue for me and probably other people on the forum. I am just trying to understand what she is saying and it is getting confusing with so many examples to decipher. As for her saying things that "vaguely reminds me of something a hateful person said at some point in time," she has said things that are exactly the same things people say all the time when they are expressing homophobic attitudes and using out-dated information to stigmatize gay people. This is why I am trying to understand more clearly. @Kitsune has said she defends gay people's choices, but then makes statements that are exactly the opposite of defending them. It is confusing.

ETA: I do not expect anyone to go out of their way to explain something to me if they don't want to, and I won't be upset or bothered about it at all if they don't. I understand that it takes time and energy to talk about this stuff. So I did not mean to imply anything like that. It is really just a suggestion or a request for this instance. And again, if it is too bothersome, that's ok.

 

[LuckySmiles]

As for her saying things that "vaguely reminds me of something a hateful person said at some point in time," she has said things that are exactly the same things people say all the time when they are expressing homophobic attitudes and using out-dated information to stigmatize gay people.

I get that but it doesn't really mean anything. Universally relatable off topic example time! lol

Anyone can take a bit of factual information and spin it anyway for any purpose.

I could make a statement like... “There are some members on camsites, who would be happier if they spent more time getting out and socializing, than on camsites.”

This could be an uncomfortable truth, but still true. It also could be spun in a multitude of ways.

“Luckysmiles thinks camsite members are losers!”

“Camgirls are heartless bitches that take advantage of people's insecurities!”

“Get rid of all the camgirls they're ruining men!”

You know? All of these are irrational conclusions, but they are based on a truthful thing. Anti-anything people can twist and manipulate information similarly, it doesn't mean some of it isn't rooted in truth. And it doesn't mean people who share bits of the same information have the same intentions.
Tis all I'm saying.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Anti-anything people can twist and manipulate information similarly, it doesn't mean some of it isn't rooted in truth. And it doesn't mean people who share bits of the same information have the same intentions.
Tis all I'm saying.

And if you read the sentence right after the part you quoted, you will see that it says, "This is why I am trying to understand more clearly." I have also repeatedly said, that I think her intentions are not to be homophobic or anti-gay, but it is coming across that way.

 

[LuckySmiles]

And if you read the sentence right after the part you quoted, you will see that it says, "This is why I am trying to understand more clearly." I have also repeatedly said, that I think her intentions are not to be homophobic or anti-gay, but it is coming across that way.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just reiterating why people often give up engaging after it's been insinuated that their homophobic (or insert any similarly hateful mentality on any topic) by several people several times in a discussion. It's just worth mentioning since it's applicable to a variety of topics and happens frequently.

 

[Mila_]

I went to the page that created that unicorn to see what its purpose is. It looks like it's a group that reaches out to teachers to help them understand LGBT students. Teachers who have students from puberty on might find that helpful, and an understanding teacher can transform futures. I might be misunderstanding their page. But, it looks to be sensitivity training for teachers (ie let's not get the school sued because a 50 year old teacher doesn't know the word "tranny" is a slur). http://www.transstudent.org/services
I don't think anyone would support asking children who they're sexually or emotionally attracted to in a school assignment. I'd be angry out my ears and not out of fear of turning my kids into anything. It just disrespects their privacy in an extreme way.

It seems like the Gender Unicorn was created by a youth group with the intention of "transforming the education system" and it was supposed to be used as a training material for the faculty. But at least in one school it was used to teach children which sparked a protest from outraged parents:

‘Gender Unicorn’ for Kids Lets Them Color in Their ‘Gender Identity’
Kids can choose whether they are sexually attracted to women, men, or ‘other genders’



BY: Elizabeth Harrington
August 12, 2016 2:20 pm

“Gender Unicorns” that kids can color in to express their “gender identity” are now being distributed in schools across the country.

A transgender advocacy group is providing schools with the cartoon of a purple unicorn who appears to be thinking about the LGBT rainbow, causing outrage from parents. One district in North Carolina was met with protests after it used the “Gender Unicorn” in its faculty training.

The group, Trans Student Educational Resources, says the Gender Unicorn is an upgrade from the “Genderbread Person,” another cartoon graphic about gender identity targeting children.

The organization offers definitions for “gender identity,” “gender expression/presentation,” “sex assigned at birth,” “sexually attracted to,” and “romantically attracted to” on its informational page on the Gender Unicorn.

Gender identity is defined as “one’s internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or another gender(s).”

“Everyone has a gender identity, including you,” the group says. “For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their own internal sense of gender identity are not the same. Female, woman, and girl and male, man, and boy are also NOT necessarily linked to each other but are just six common gender identities.”

The group also argues against using the term “sex,” or biological status, because it is transphobic.

Sex assigned at birth is the “assignment and classification of people as male, female, intersex, or another sex based on a combination of anatomy, hormones, chromosomes,” the group says. “It is important we don’t simply use ‘sex’ because of the vagueness of the definition of sex and its place in transphobia. Chromosomes are frequently used to determine sex from prenatal karyotyping (although not as often as genitalia). Chromosomes do not determine genitalia.”

The graphic is available in coloring book form so kids can draw out their “gender expression” and show who they are sexually attracted to.

The group says the unicorn is preferable to the “Genderbread Person” made by “itspronouncedmetrosexual” because it “more accurately portray the distinction between gender, sex assigned at birth, and sexuality.”

“We wanted to create a gender graphic that shows how queer and trans people view gender instead of one straight, cisgender man,” the group says.

The Gender Unicorn is available in 11 languages, including Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Deutsch, German, French, Turkish, Hungarian, and Danish.

Trans Student Educational Resources is a “youth-led organization dedicated to transforming the educational environment for trans and gender nonconforming students through advocacy and empowerment.”

Aside from the unicorn, the group also offers a guide to pronouns that includes “she, he, they, and ze, zir, hir, hirs, zirs, hirself, and zirself.”

“Please note that these are not the only pronouns,” the group says. “There are an infinite number of pronouns as new ones emerge in our language.”

The Gender Unicorn has popped up in at least one school district in Charlotte, N.C.

One parent of two Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools students decried the cartoon as “slick marketing.”

“It is friendly looking and deceitful because that unicorn, to me, represents the religion of sex,” Donica Hudson told WCNC-TV, a local NBC affiliate. “It is silencing and penalizing those of us who believe we were created male and female and should be able to use those terms.”

The school district, which serves 141,000 kids aged prekindergarten through 12th grade, said the cartoon is “used nationally.”

“The Gender Unicorn is a tool used nationally to help explain gender identity terminology. It was used during the principal training session for that purpose only,” the district said. “Our goal remains providing a safe and welcoming school environment where every student can succeed academically and socially.”

Still, even if it was as a misuse of the material I have to wonder why they have to use something like the Gender Unicorn to teach adult people about this. Aren't faculty members adults? Shouldn't they be learning about this from books with text on them? Why do they have this material in coloring book format? It kinda looks like it was made to appeal to children.

But let's believe them and not jump into conclusions, let's think that their intention was for the Gender Unicorn to be a faculty only "resource". Is this the only example we have of this? It isn't. We have been pushing the LGBT themes into kids through TV and the school system in sex ed classes or even shows like Glee. There are even reality TV shows about teenage transexuals like "I am Jazz" a boy who has been living like a girl since he was 4 years old. And I think this show is not on an adult timeslot, and you can watch all the episodes for free on TLC's website. The problem I have with this show and I don't have with, say, I Am Cait, is that Caitlyn Jenner is an adult doing adult things. Jazz Jennings is a 14 year old boy whose parents have been treating him like a girl since he was 4. Kids can watch this show and think that Jazz is a role model and parents everywhere can now feel safe to emulate Jazz' parents and start dressing their 3 year olds as the gender they wish the kid was.

Why do we applaud adults when they interfere with children's identity formation? and why do we only do it if they push them into the LGBT direction? Why is it applauded when adults now treat their 3 or 4 year old kids as "transgendered"? Parents that give their 9 year old children pills to stop them from going through puberty. If a 9 year old kid cannot consent to sex, how can they consent to having hormone therapy? How can their parents make a decision like this for them? How about a 4 year old? They probably don't even know the word for their genitals or understand abstract concepts like "liberty" but we are supposed to believe that they already know things like "gender identity" or "I am a woman trapped in a man's body"? It is complete insanity.

 

[Worship Jaclyn]

So @Kitsune do you think that awareness and acceptance for lgbt people shouldn't be taught? Or is there another way that it can be taught where you won't see it as just pushing that agenda onto our children?

I come from a family where the more outside the norm I am, the prouder they will be. If I married some white banker they would be so ashamed, if I married a black woman that would literally be ideal for them. They could pat themselves on their creepy little backs for being so accepting and sleep better at night. It's gross but pushing your children in an odd direction definitely happens. But that's going to happen whether gay kids are on tv or not. Parents are going to push their children in a certain direction. I don't think that we just shouldn't be made aware of certain lifestyles because of the risk of making it easier on some shitty parent.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

It seems like the Gender Unicorn was created by a youth group with the intention of "transforming the education system" and it was supposed to be used as a training material for the faculty. But at least in one school it was used to teach children which sparked a protest from outraged parents:

Still, even if it was as a misuse of the material I have to wonder why they have to use something like the Gender Unicorn to teach adult people about this. Aren't faculty members adults? Shouldn't they be learning about this from books with text on them? Why do they have this material in coloring book format? It kinda looks like it was made to appeal to children.

But let's believe them and not jump into conclusions, let's think that their intention was for the Gender Unicorn to be a faculty only "resource". Is this the only example we have of this? It isn't. We have been pushing the LGBT themes into kids through TV and the school system in sex ed classes or even shows like Glee. There are even reality TV shows about teenage transexuals like "I am Jazz" a boy who has been living like a girl since he was 4 years old. And I think this show is not on an adult timeslot, and you can watch all the episodes for free on TLC's website. The problem I have with this show and I don't have with, say, I Am Cait, is that Caitlyn Jenner is an adult doing adult things. Jazz Jennings is a 14 year old boy whose parents have been treating him like a girl since he was 4. Kids can watch this show and think that Jazz is a role model and parents everywhere can now feel safe to emulate Jazz' parents and start dressing their 3 year olds as the gender they wish the kid was.

Why do we applaud adults when they interfere with children's identity formation? and why do we only do it if they push them into the LGBT direction? Why is it applauded when adults now treat their 3 or 4 year old kids as "transgendered"? Parents that give their 9 year old children pills to stop them from going through puberty. If a 9 year old kid cannot consent to sex, how can they consent to having hormone therapy? How can their parents make a decision like this for them? How about a 4 year old? They probably don't even know the word for their genitals or understand abstract concepts like "liberty" but we are supposed to believe that they already know things like "gender identity" or "I am a woman trapped in a man's body"? It is complete insanity.

Who is we? Who is applauding?

We got rid of our TV in the 1970's to protect ourselves from the Agenda. We carefully guarded our children from its poison, because we understood how important the children are. Everything we allowed them was carefully screened to prevent immorality from creeping in.

We presented an unrealistic, unattainable image of perfection for them to strive towards. We presented a terrifying view of the world for them to flee from. We showed them our leader screaming as he was being dragged from a building so that they would understand the stakes of our struggle.

We have an LGBT movement for a reason. It is a response.

I wish there was someone who knew how to crunch numbers. I would like to know what percentage of parents are interfering with children's identity formations that aren't shown on reality TV. But never mind Christian extremism (unless you want to hear about some really warped sex-ed).

How widespread is this practice of adults treating 4 year olds as transgendered? How many 9 year olds are on hormone therapy to prevent puberty? How many people are so weak minded that, if they were to see it on TV, they would be influenced to run out and do the same to their child?

Now the Gender Unicorn may be a real eye-roller; but compare it with this...
In a Facebook message posted Friday, Rev. Graham denounced the school district character, calling it an effort "to try to brainwash our children into accepting that homosexuality and transgender behavior is okay."
"Parents, watch out. They are using this unicorn to grab the imagination of children and make this seem acceptable."

This is a leader. A man with influence. He is saying that homosexuality and transgender behavior is NOT ok. NOT acceptable. This, too, is complete insanity. And this insanity was going on well before the Gender Unicorn or reality TV.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I don't think anyone would support asking children who they're sexually or emotionally attracted to in a school assignment. I'd be angry out my ears and not out of fear of turning my kids into anything. It just disrespects their privacy in an extreme way.

It's like we don't actively teach children about sex until they're the right age. But it's good to have a casual healthy attitude towards it so that when children are ready to come out they don't see it as being weird.

I'll agree that shoving sexuality down any childs throat would be unhealthy. But we already have straight couples, and people who are gay who have life problems because they feel like they can't come out. There seems to be fear that if gay couples are around and children know about them then they'll pretend they're gay, just like people pretend they're straight... I think it's possible but unlikely that it'd go past experimentation seeing as there are still way more straight couples around.

I started realising I was bi when I was around 10. It was a natural time for gender curiosity so it was a mix of two things. But I was terrified of being a lesbian. I didn't want to not be "normal". I didn't understand what it meant.
If I'd had a bit more communication I might have been less scared and more relaxed. I might have been able to experiment in the way I wanted to. Maybe I wouldn't have received extreme homophobic abuse in school later down the line that led to me being repressed.
I once watched a film where the girls family sent her to a conversion camp and disowned her. I asked my mother what she'd do, she answered that of course she wouldn't. She'd love and accept me whatever. The film still scared me.

Telling people to "keep it in their houses" is ridiculous.

This isn't some sort of fetish. And it's nothing like porn.
I agree, porn isn't always good, it has loads of negative points and can be very unhealthy for the actors and viewers. That's backed up by genuine research, it's not just some person saying "I don't like it".

Being gay isn't any different from being straight in my opinion. You might kiss in public but you're not going to make out furiously or start fucking infront of children or even other people.

When a child asks about people kissing it's not like you go into full detail anyway. You just say "sometimes couples like to kiss" when they ask any it's too men or women you just say "sometimes they like to kiss too." it doesn't have to be made a big deal of. A lot of children who turn out to be fully straight experiment with the same sex anyway so what's the harm? That they might be less repressed and fearful? That somehow that might lead to everyone turning gay/bi? If being gay is what people want without repression then I guess that's up to them.

I have a cousin who has come out as trans. She's known for years but her mother very much believes somethings wrong with her and it's just a phase. They've gone to many doctors, tried to balance get hormones and nothing has worked.
She's 17 now, so maybe too young to get the op, but old enough to know her mind. Her mother has told her she'll take her out of school want basically disown her if she doesn't stay being a girl.
Now hey, maybe she has got the idea in her head, maybe she might change her mind one day. But it seems unlikely.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Sorry double post- too late to edit- just want to apologise for typos, I use my phone and my predictive text has a mind if it's own sometimes...

 

[Mila_]

So @Kitsune do you think that awareness and acceptance for lgbt people shouldn't be taught? Or is there another way that it can be taught where you won't see it as just pushing that agenda onto our children?

I come from a family where the more outside the norm I am, the prouder they will be. If I married some white banker they would be so ashamed, if I married a black woman that would literally be ideal for them. They could pat themselves on their creepy little backs for being so accepting and sleep better at night. It's gross but pushing your children in an odd direction definitely happens. But that's going to happen whether gay kids are on tv or not. Parents are going to push their children in a certain direction. I don't think that we just shouldn't be made aware of certain lifestyles because of the risk of making it easier on some shitty parent.

Thank you for asking me, @AriaFaye I think I have two ways to answer your question, one is my own personal taste, which is totally subjective so I feel it is a bit pointless to share it, sort of like answering a question about what my favorite ice-cream flavor is. But I can tell it to you just for fun. And then there is the realistic, practical approach which I think is more reasonable and also has more substance, and I will share both. Please if anyone disagrees with the first part of this I understand and I respect all other views too since this is just a matter of taste. You can like chocolate and I can like vanilla and we can all still be friends

So.. my personal taste. I have a very strong position against the education system in principle and in practice so my opinion on this is 100% colored by that. I will never send my kids to school if I ever have them and I will take upon the massive task of homeschooling them simply because I think the education system is broken. But I digress. My opinion is the education system has no place in teaching children about sexuality. This should be a private affair handled by each family the way they see fit. I realize that this might pose a problem in families where sex is a taboo subject, and I don't really have a very good answer for that, so I need to do more thinking on how society could tackle that problem without imposing sex-ed classes on everyone.

Now for the "reasonable" practical bit: it is very unlikely that sex-ed classes are going anywhere anytime soon. So I would just prefer if they taught it in an objective manner like it was biology or chemistry and not force issues. They should tackle the gay issue when students are old enough to ask questions about it, not before, and even then just explain what it is without a value judgement on the part of the teacher.

There are so many things we don't teach acceptance or awareness of. We don't teach awareness of eyesight problems, or congenital diseases. We don't teach awareness of diabetes and diabetics. So many things we simply let people figure out their way. We should always punish cruelty or bullying whatever the reason. But maybe we shouldn't put so much emphasis on sexuality since it is just one out of a million issues that can be used to divide people when we should be looking for reasons to be united. We only see this as such a big deal because this is an issue that has been politicized. In this century we are no longer a frenchman or a german, we are straight or cis or trans or gay. We are supposed to use our sexuality as the cornerstone of our identities. Because it is convenient to identity politics. And we are extending this practice further with the abled/disabled dichotomy, etc.

I know many of you think I see marxism everywhere, but humor me for a second if only for the sake of this debate. The main struggle of the left has always been globalism vs nationalism. Because the leftist struggle is by t's very nature international. In the beginning it was "all workers of the world unite!" against the "rich class", the left looked for the poor and the workers to identify with one another across borders so they could fight "the rich" together. In their view a rich man from Singapore had more in common with a rich man from Mexico than with a poor person from Singapore. And viceversa. Before socialism each society was united around certain common themes, holidays, and traditions, so a rich person from Spain and a poor person from Spain felt like they belonged to the same country and they fought together for the betterment of their country. After socialism rich and poor would fight each other. This is why it is a key thing for marxists to mock all national sentiments, the national flag, national holidays etc. But when that tactic of dividing people across income lines failed (and I could go into detail into why it failed but it would be too long to explain here) they looked for other things to divide society with. Which is why they are now using sexual identity, racial identity and gender to do the same thing. Women from all countries should unite against "the patriarchy" (which if we are critical in reality means the men in their countries) and LGBT people of all countries must unite against the straight/cis system of oppression and so on and so on. This is why these things are being politicized. It would be hard to do this with diabetics as they are such a tiny minority. But they just discovered they can lump all health issues within the bag of "disabled" and use it as a weapon too. The goal is to divide society and make everyone fight each other. Divide and conquer.

So, I think we should just teach children to not be cruel, to not bully, and to not attack people who are different from them. But I don't think we should be making such a fuss about sexuality or any other thing really, just teach them that those things exist once they are old enough to ask. And if they happen to doubt their sexuality or realize that they are gay and come to ask you about it you just make them feel accepted and beloved because being gay or not is not their identity, it is just one more part of who they are. And you also offer to help them tackle all the problems they will face because being gay comes with problems whether people want to admit it or not. Just be there for them. But don't start teaching kids about this before they are ready, don't make them question their sexuality because "they are supposed to" and don't teach them that their sexual identity is a cornerstone of their being.

 

[JickyJuly]

As far as Jazz goes, I judge her parents much more for putting her on TV than allowing her to transition. Whose parents see their child struggling and think cameras! What we need in here is cameras and strangers! They're totally profiting off of her path and allowing gender to be her defining quality which could be stunting.

Is gender a big thing with kids that young? My oldest daughter is almost 4 and gender barely comes up. She knows she's a girl. She's knows the names of her body parts. I think she knows that she has those parts because she is a girl, but we're a house full of girls. So, I can't be sure. We shop in the girl section and the boy section (they have more animal shirts, more robots, more blue and longer shorts all of which she likes). To me, telling her anything is "for girls" or "for boys" is ridiculous. She wouldn't really need to want to be a boy because we don't label things that way. Even if she did, her idea of life for a girl vs. life for a boy would be really shallow and not something a giant life decision should be based on.

At least the hormones and transitioning thing includes a doctor. I wonder if it includes a pediatrician in her case? If this is a case of overreach, those doctors would be held responsible as well. In the case of privacy invasion with TV cameras though, do we have no laws protecting children? We should. Kids have no place in the trash pile that is reality TV, and parents who would put them there should probably be looked at for their decision making skills.

+

Still, even if it was as a misuse of the material I have to wonder why they have to use something like the Gender Unicorn to teach adult people about this. Aren't faculty members adults? Shouldn't they be learning about this from books with text on them? Why do they have this material in coloring book format? It kinda looks like it was made to appeal to children.

Childish printouts are pretty normal for workshop stuff, especially if your job is seen as primarily female (like teaching). Once in the salon we had a group in teaching techniques and they gave us all these coloring things and markers. Very childish. Super annoying. Absolutely happens though.

 

[Worship Jaclyn]

Is gender a big thing with kids that young? My oldest daughter is almost 4 and gender barely comes up. She knows she's a girl. She's knows the names of her body parts. I think she knows that she has those parts because she is a girl, but we're a house full of girls. So, I can't be sure. We shop in the girl section and the boy section (they have more animal shirts, more robots, more blue and longer shorts all of which she likes). To me, telling her anything is "for girls" or "for boys" is ridiculous. She wouldn't really need to want to be a boy because we don't label things that way. Even if she did, her idea of life for a girl vs. life for a boy would be really shallow and not something a giant life decision should be

I agree! L likes to wear ninjago shirts and pink tutus. She definitely gets her toys and clothes from any section and she would never look at it like being interested in boy things or wanting to wear boy clothes.

L is too young to think boys have cooties but when talking about her life as an adult, she always talks about her girlfriend or wife. When she meets a new and pretty female friend of mine she asks if they're married and was actually brought to tears that one of them was because then they couldn't get married. I just look at that and think hey maybe she will grow up to only be interested in women. That's my entire thought process. I don't think it means I should talk to her about sexuality or that hers is definitely sorted by now. She's practically a baby, it's for her to figure out in her own time and I'm not at all needed in that process, which is something a lot of parents just don't want to believe. That they aren't needed. That some problems would better solved if we just let children figure things out on their own. If I had a son and he wanted to wear a dress, I would let him. I wouldn't start talking to him about gender, sexuality or anything else. The great thing about childhood is you can try on a hat one day and never pick it back up again and I 100% agree that parents need to just sit back and allow that. I also think it's important to have age appropriate conversations with kids, and to not put ideas in their head that don't belong there yet.

I am also very anti public school system and wouldn't dream of letting my own child step foot in one but I do hold parents to a certain standard also. Sex ed is typically horrendous but you don't have to let your child take it, and if you are against what is being taught then it's up to you to find out how to get your child excused from it. I guess my opinion is just that parents don't have any right to bitch about the education their children are getting. No, homeschooling maybe isn't an option for every single family but doing all your research and knowing your rights is always an option.

 

[LioraVox]

So idk if this is just me, but I feel like the parents who have allowed their kids to live in whatever identity they think they are are doing just what has been said. As a parent, if your kid comes to you - you gotta "make them feel accepted and beloved". I feel like, if your kid comes up to you and asks you any questions, they are old enough to understand. I also feel like schools pick up A LOT of the slack from parents. Parents tend to shy away from hard topics because they (the parent) aren't ready to have that conversation with their child and they often use the "you're not old enough to understand yet" bullshit . And in a family that's kind of conservative or in a family that doesn't really like discussing hard topics - all a kid has is their teachers or sex ed class

I personally, learned a lot in school and am very thankful for having teachers I could go to when I felt like I couldn't talk to my family. Or for classes sparking ideas that caused me to question life.

I also think that because this group (members of ACF) are pretty progressive, and open minded the parents of the forum may be more willing to address hard topics, than say the average parent.

 

[LuckySmiles]

I agree with the leaving it all alone. Kids don't think that deeply into things. I grew up in a house of brothers and sisters where the battle of the sexes was very real. And I was often the tiny mediator/comedic relief. But I definitely associated certain things with being like the boys. Little kids with older siblings probably do that a lot, because they're their role models.

The problems are only when adults try to intervene in either way. That makes a bigger deal out of things. Most children play around with "gender roles" or whatever you want to call them quite a bit. Toys play into it as well.. The easy bake oven was all pink and purple and marketed to little girls, it doesn't mean little johnny shouldn't want to play with his sisters easy bake oven. But if people act like it "means something" negatively or positively it's going to result in confusion. And I could see some people jumping in the opposite direction from the past. Almost over encouraging children to be as a-stereotypical as possible instead of letting them just be.

For example discouraging boys from sports and over encouraging girls into them, rather than letting the kid just do what they want. When the reality is a lot of boys prefer to play "rougher" games than little girls and that's ok. There's exceptions and that's ok too. None of it necessarily means anything in one way or the other.

Actually I saw something somewhere sometime (i have no info sorry) Where little girls are much more competitive in sports when they're small, and tend to stop caring after puberty, whereas boys who might have been whatever about sports start to become more competitive. I would fall into that, I lost interest in playing competitive basketball at around 14.

But when you observe a group of little kids generally boys are more hyperactive and girls are generally content chilling, coloring,playing creative games etc. Of course there is always exceptions. There's the notion that like little girls are "easier" when their small and boys are more difficult, but then raising girls as teenagers is more like hell and boys are comparatively a bit "easier" There's a lot of truth in that, whether people are always comfortable admitting it.

But I'm not sure what any of this post has to do with anything anymore... Oh! right!.. I wouldn't really trust schools to bring up anything related to these things in my hypothetical children.

 

[Worship Jaclyn]

So idk if this is just me, but I feel like the parents who have allowed their kids to live in whatever identity they think they are are doing just what has been said. As a parent, if your kid comes to you - you gotta "make them feel accepted and beloved". I feel like, if your kid comes up to you and asks you any questions, they are old enough to understand. I also feel like schools pick up A LOT of the slack from parents. Parents tend to shy away from hard topics because they (the parent) aren't ready to have that conversation with their child and they often use the "you're not old enough to understand yet" bullshit . And in a family that's kind of conservative or in a family that doesn't really like discussing hard topics - all a kid has is their teachers or sex ed class

I personally, learned a lot in school and am very thankful for having teachers I could go to when I felt like I couldn't talk to my family. Or for classes sparking ideas that caused me to question life.

I also think that because this group (members of ACF) are pretty progressive, and open minded the parents of the forum may be more willing to address hard topics, than say the average parent.

I do think that if a kid asks specific questions they should obviously be answered. And if a child says they want to live as a boy or girl then that should be accepted as well. My comments were on parents who take one tiny thing their child does and then pushes it into something by way of helicopter parenting. Let your child express themselves how they want but don't be so busy proving how accepting you are that your child thinks they have to be this ultra unique version of something to impress you.

It isn't the school's job to touch on sensitive issues, it's a parents. The fact that there are shitty parents out there doesn't change that. In the absence of the public school system there would always be something or someone else to be there for kids, so I'm not going to credit schools with doing what I consider to be the bare minimum.

 

[LioraVox]

I do think that if a kid asks specific questions they should obviously be answered. And if a child says they want to live as a boy or girl then that should be accepted as well. My comments were on parents who take one tiny thing their child does and then pushes it into something by way of helicopter parenting. Let your child express themselves how they want but don't be so busy proving how accepting you are that your child thinks they have to be this ultra unique version of something to impress you.

It isn't the school's job to touch on sensitive issues, it's a parents. The fact that there are shitty parents out there doesn't change that. In the absence of the public school system there would always be something or someone else to be there for kids, so I'm not going to credit schools with doing what I consider to be the bare minimum.

I agree with what you said, except for this "so I'm not going to credit schools with doing what I consider to be the bare minimum." Do you mean "bare minimum" as a task for parents or as in "the school does the bare minimum"?

Because schools absolutely do not do the "bare minimum". The bare minimum would be telling your child to rewrite whatever the teacher wrote, and adding simple things. "Bare minimum" wouldn't be teaching your child to count, manners, another language, biology, chemistry, algebra or even getting them to remain active. So schools should get some sort of credit, for being a glorified babysitter that teaches kids things for 12-13 years while parents are out working and making money for the family. Granted some school systems suck and could be better, but "bare minimum".. that's usually the parents, that just tell kids "do you homework" "did you finish your homework?" the types that never get involved in their child's studying UNLESS their child is failing or the teacher suggests the parents to help them with their work.

Also in an instance of being a child surrounded by adults that tell you to live how they live, school could offer diversity. Example : A child has racist parents, but the child goes to a very diverse school- if the child wants to talk about racism w/o hearing how a race is lesser who do they have to talk to? Their teacher, classmates or counselor. A child has homophobic parents but learns about sexual identity - who does that child have to talk to? their classmates, or their teacher/counselor.

ETA: Also it isn't the schools job to teach these things at all, so that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that in the absence of parents teaching kids, we have the public school system. And they should get credit for being a somewhat possible safe space for children especially when home or a relatives house isn't.