Judge Gegi
So creepy Gegi is a lawyer now?
What does that mean? Is it a human rights violation to say that a skirt doesn’t turn a man into a woman?
What if teachers have too many other things to do to “practice articulating that one of our legal responsibilities is mitigating gender-based discrimination in our classroom and school”? And why do they need to “practice articulating” it anyway? Is there going to be a contest?
Haven’t you heard? Teachers have it easy. They only work six hours a day, nine months out of the year, and don’t do anything when they’re not sitting in front of the class or writing on the board. Because papers grade themselves, and lessons prepare themselves, and audio/visual tools create themselves, and…
At least, that’s what I assume from the number of people who have told me how lucky I am to have such a high-paying, easy job. Especially members of my family (the Republican members – which is most of them).
… or is it a human rights violation to suggest that a skirt DOES turn a man into a woman?
So I might be getting this wrong because there is no way in hell that I will click on that website, but if “gender expression” is basically the set of behaviors that is normally associated with sex stereotypes, I fully agree that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of not having exactly the “right” set of these behaviors. No one should be harassed for not fitting into a particular stereotype.
Tomboys should not be harassed for expressing some “boy” coded behaviors. Nor should they be told that because they express those behaviors that they’re not really girls or that they are actually boys. Similarly for non-conforming boys … some “girl” coded behavior does not make them not boys. Seems like the best outcome here would be to not punish kids for not following sex-stereotyped behaviors.
Not getting into the “gender identity” stuff because, frankly, I don’t know what that is – and if it’s what I think it is, it’d probably be better for the kids if we really stopped punishing non-conforming behavior so harshly rather than obsessing over unicorns, gingerbread men, and pronouns.
Do not get me started on this … :)
Somehow I don’t think Gegi is going to like this at all. I get the feeling that “gender non-confomity” is considered the exclusive domain of “trans” kids. Those tomboys really are boys. Those boys are really girls. The rest of us are doomed to be “cis,” and thus “comfortable” with or have “alignment” between our “gender identity” and our “assigned” sex.
I’m sure that teachers are already aware of their obligations and that very, very few would actively discriminate against their pupils, but I would like to know what planet the idiots behind this nonsense live on if they think that a fucking leery, creepy, rather sinister if badly drawn unicorn head will help teachers to control the kids themselves.
Have these fools ever even met any children or remember their own formative years? Yes, I know that the brains [sic] behind this will mostly reside within transitioned trans whatevers, and that the popular fiction is that to all intents and purposes their previous selves are not really their previous selves – those people died along with their (dead)names the day they transitioned and sprang into being fully-formed – but in the real world nobody actually died, so the memories will still be there in those shiny new identites.
In case they’ve efficiently suppressed those memories, however, here’s a reminder. Kids can be and often are feral little brutes with no empathy and little respect for authority when the authority can’t see them. Not their own fault for the most part, their brains just haven’t really developed a sense of the other just yet, and later on, even though most kids do improve there’s the unfortunate fact that some kids enjoy being the tormentors too much to give it up (as the TRAs should understand; many of them fall into that latter group, after all).
Teachers, parents, and anybody else with authority can tell them until they’re blue in the face why they must do this and must not do that. They can talk about consequences and feelings and fairness until the cows come home, and the kids will sit to attention and nod and smile in all the right places. Then they’re off into the playground to tease and bully each other out of earshot of the adults. They will pick up on the slightest deviation from their ideas of ‘normal’ and show no mercy. They’ve always been that way and will always be that way. Thinking that a weird cartoon spikehorse will change things is just another trans fantasy in their increasingly fantastical dogma. I would at this point normally add something like ‘but the Gegi people mean well’, only I don’t believe that for one second.
Acolyte:
We have it from embryology that we all repeat the stages of evolution in utero. We go from being pretty identical to the embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles etc on (some would say ‘up’) to humans. Then in infancy and childhood we arguably repeat the stages of human history, whose chief lesson I submit is simple: if you can’t defend it, you don’t own it. From which flows all the trappings of civilisation, from clans to tribes to states to empires.
Kids on the way through that can smash a lot of toys, crockery, furniture, etc, etc, etc, as they sort out the pecking order. Most of the little Hitlers get persuaded onto other paths on their way through. But as history records, not quite all.
Omar, that sounds a lot like the recapitulation theory of development. Recapitulation theory was abandoned long ago.
Gegi the Unicorn looks like an example of the gender ID movement packaging indoctrination materials for schools as “anti-bullying” to circumvent parental rights to object to the material in sex education.
It reminds me of the wedge strategy to get Creationism into schools as Intelligent Design.
This is simply not the case; embryology abandoned that a long time ago, as Holms says, when they discovered it was not true. Yes, we start out looking like fish embryos, that is true. But we do not recapitulate all the stages of development. And a lot of what you see about that is based on pictures that were modified to fit the hypothesis, which is not how science is supposed to work.
Dave @ 8 – that’s a very interesting point. I wonder if anyone in charge will ever catch on.
“offer a climate free from gender identity AND gender expression discrimination”
How does that “AND” work? Does making it all caps turn it into a new category of conjunction?
AND wouldn’t the expression of gender required for “gender expression discrimination” have to be dissallowed in a climate that is free from gender identity?
Holms @# 7
& iknklast @# 9:
Ah yes. As I recall, I first encountered what is apparently now labelled as ‘recapitulation theory’ in high school back in the 1950s (shows my age, doesn’t it?) Nor do I find it odd that an anatomical or physiological feature developed in the course of evolution will be retained, provided it has an effect >/= 0 on probability of survival (eg the human appendix, ‘wisdom teeth’; ‘tail bones’; the fine ‘naked ape’ body hair, all dragged along into modernity because no reason not to.) For those, God received a ‘can do better, must try harder’ assessment from sceptics like Richard Dawkins in the ‘Intelligent Design’ controversy a few years back (and which controversy is probably still raging in some intellectual backblocks and bywaters.)
Intellectual fashions come and go: witness the ‘fashionable nonsense’ of postmodernism (PoMo) that took academic humanities departments by storm, while enjoying far less influence in the sciences; a significant contribution to the debunking of which having been made by OB, proprietor of this site.
It was not just Charles Darwin who felt that it was dangerous to upset an establishment by introducing a new idea. Sir Alastair Hardy felt the same way about his aquatic theory of human origins, and waited until after his retirement to publish it. (Elaine Morgan, a self-taught scientist with no academic marbles to lose, became its chief proponent.)
So on this, the jurors have shown no great rush to return, but have shambled back in the courtroom, with a laggard or two needing a smarten up. But I note your point.
Don’t worry though, the woke seem to have declared war on science, particularly space exploration.