Is There Such a Thing as Too Different?

[Sculptor]

Is it OK to allow pedophiles to teach in schools (provided they don't have sex with any of their students)? I mean, you could be right. Maybe our society is too repressive and doesn't allow children enough freedom to explore their true natures?

I think you are a bit confused. You need to look at a dictionary. Do you know what a dictionary is?
Now then, run along and ask your mummy what is the difference between a cross dresser and a paedophile. When you know come back and I'll set your straight.
PS have you done your homework?

I asked you because I think the same justification that is used to allow this man to teach can be used to justify social acceptance of pedophiles. Are you OK with pedophilia or is there a different sort of justification that can be used to discriminate against pedophiles but not this man?

The same justification to allow a woman to teach is used. Are you okay with women teaching children?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The same justification to allow a woman to teach is used. Are you okay with women teaching children?

⇧

[Gary Childress]

I think you are a bit confused. You need to look at a dictionary. Do you know what a dictionary is?
Now then, run along and ask your mummy what is the difference between a cross dresser and a paedophile. When you know come back and I'll set your straight.
PS have you done your homework?

I asked you because I think the same justification that is used to allow this man to teach can be used to justify social acceptance of pedophiles. Are you OK with pedophilia or is there a different sort of justification that can be used to discriminate against pedophiles but not this man?

The same justification to allow a woman to teach is used. Are you okay with women teaching children?

I'll repost my last response so you can catch up to the conversation:

All in all, maybe I'm just unjustly prejudiced against transsexuals. I mean I just think it a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that children be exposed to all this gender-switching and everything. It seems insane to me. But maybe, in the end, it's just "fine" as Sculptor insists. I'm, perhaps, just being too old fashioned (and bigoted) in that respect.

Naw. Don't go soft just because somebody pulls the "b" word, or because you don't want to hear somebody do it. You're no bigot, so far as I can see; but you don't become one just because some numbskull pulls that trick.

It's not bigoted to have a grasp on reality. Genetics shows you you're right. Don't let the mere virtue-signallers throw you off. They don't care what happens to anybody, so long as they can preen themselves on their doubtful "virtues." But to let people butcher and abuse children, or to abandon the mentally ill to their torments by "normalizing" their illness is no act of mercy. That much should be pretty clear to you.

I guess what I'm wondering is whether or not it just comes down to pragmatics. Yes, it's very odd behavior but Is such a person actually harming the children? I mean, I get delusional episodes once in a while where I'm just batshit crazy, acting batshit crazy and doing batshit crazy things, babbling about things incoherently and I can understand not wanting me to be in a classroom when that happens. But I'm surmising that the only thing wrong with this guy is that he just "identifies" as a female. Presumably, all the other faculties of a person with gender dysphoria are unaffected. They can still form coherent sentences, they can teach out of a textbook, etc. I mean, maybe, at the worst, s/he will say that it's OK to be gender dysphoric to the children. Is that such a bad thing if maybe one of the children in the back of the classroom feels the same way about his gender identity and takes some comfort in the fact that his life isn't completely over and he could have a teaching career too if he works hard at it?

At this point just saying, "he's crazy" seems kind of unsubstantial. It seems to me that there needs to be some tangible reason if s/he is going to be disqualified from teaching based on the concept that s/he cannot perform the job. But what if s/he can?

One thing I will say is that I have heard that people who identify as a different gender get very antagonistic toward others if others use or refuse to use the "correct" pronoun etc. Now maybe that would create unnecessary antagonisms in the classroom, labeling students who disagree with the practice as "bigoted" or something. I wouldn't think we should be creating such labels for young children.

So I'm interested in what you think, sculptor? You've obviously had more experience with the schools and maybe with transgender or transsexual teachers. What if the teacher gets upset at children for using the wrong pronoun? Is it OK to guilt children over something like that?

[Sculptor]

So I'm interested in what you think, sculptor? You've obviously had more experience with the schools and maybe with transgender or transsexual teachers. What if the teacher gets upset at children for using the wrong pronoun? Is it OK to guilt children over something like that?

Until you stop confusing paedophiles with trans people I cannot see the point in continuing your bat-shit crazy conversation.

[Gary Childress]

So I'm interested in what you think, sculptor? You've obviously had more experience with the schools and maybe with transgender or transsexual teachers. What if the teacher gets upset at children for using the wrong pronoun? Is it OK to guilt children over something like that?

Until you stop confusing paedophiles with trans people I cannot see the point in continuing your bat-shit crazy conversation.

Again, I'll catch you up on the conversation:

... I was trying to draw some distinction between someone who does indeed fantasize about children but doesn't act on the fantasy versus someone who does. But maybe I shouldn't use that [pedophilia] as an example of something similar in social taboo to transsexualism. I should probably drop it from here forward.

[Immanuel Can]

...Is such a person actually harming the children?

Is that the issue? Do we want people teaching our children who are merely "not harming" in a way we can readily identify? Or do we want excellent, well-adjusted teachers, the best people, to teach our children? In many locales, teachers are held to a much higher standard than ordinary individuals, due to the important and sensitive nature of what they do. A special code of ethics guides their profession, putting obligations on them much higher than on other people. But perhaps not everywhere.

As it is, children are developing individuals. One aspect of their development is sexual, and another is in relation to their gender. Normal development is what we should expect of all the models we are giving them. And someone who is dysphoric has lost control of that aspect of his life, and is no longer representative of a well-adjusted individual. I suggest he's not suitable for a career in nurturing vulnerable children. I wouldn't want him around kids, any more than I'd want any mentally ill person having access to them.

I think children are too important for us to be lax about that, and higher standards are warranted. They guy should find another job, until he's addressed his problem.

[Gary Childress]

...Is such a person actually harming the children?

Is that the issue? Do we want people teaching our children who are merely "not harming" in a way we can readily identify? Or do we want excellent, well-adjusted teachers, the best people, to teach our children? In many locales, teachers are held to a much higher standard than ordinary individuals, due to the important and sensitive nature of what they do. A special code of ethics guides their profession, putting obligations on them much higher than on other people. But perhaps not everywhere.

As it is, children are developing individuals. One aspect of their development is sexual, and another is in relation to their gender. Normal development is what we should expect of all the models we are giving them. And someone who is dysphoric has lost control of that aspect of his life, and is no longer representative of a well-adjusted individual. I suggest he's not suitable for a career in nurturing vulnerable children. I wouldn't want him around kids, any more than I'd want any mentally ill person having access to them.

I think children are too important for us to be lax about that, and higher standards are warranted. They guy should find another job, until he's addressed his problem.

That seems like a fair point. Positive role models are a good thing I suppose. But what if a transsexual teacher were some sort of genius like Alan Turing, for example. Turing was, of course, persecuted by the British government after the war for being gay. He killed himself as a result and Britain probably lost one of their brightest stars who probably would have gone on to do more great things.

I don't know if it is true of the teacher in question, however, if a transgender teacher is exceptionally good at teaching, then wouldn't it be a tragedy to keep him/her away from a profession that always has a demand for talented teachers? Conversely, suppose a person was just the most upstanding person in the world, a real saint, but didn't know the first thing about teaching, Should we just drop people like that in the classrooms so that kids can look at them and want to emulate them but the kids come out of the class ignorant and uneducated?

I'm guessing one answer would be that we should want teachers that exemplify both attributes; positive role model and good at teaching, however, schools right now seem to be more beggars than choosers. Teaching is an often thankless job and a lot of people would rather do something else less stressful and better paying.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know if it is true of the teacher in question, however, if a transgender teacher is exceptionally good at teaching, then wouldn't it be a tragedy to keep him/her away from a profession that always has a demand for talented teachers?

It's a tragedy whenever somebody is struggling with gender dysphoria, it's true. And there's no reason such a person could not serve the world in many ways...say, as a code breaker, like Alan Turing.

But any good teacher knows that the education system does not exist to give teachers jobs...it exists for the care and nurture of children. So the 'right' of anyone to teach is circumscribed by our obligation to protect and serve students.

[FlashDangerpants]

...Is such a person actually harming the children?

Is that the issue? Do we want people teaching our children who are merely "not harming" in a way we can readily identify? Or do we want excellent, well-adjusted teachers, the best people, to teach our children? In many locales, teachers are held to a much higher standard than ordinary individuals, due to the important and sensitive nature of what they do. A special code of ethics guides their profession, putting obligations on them much higher than on other people. But perhaps not everywhere.

As it is, children are developing individuals. One aspect of their development is sexual, and another is in relation to their gender. Normal development is what we should expect of all the models we are giving them. And someone who is dysphoric has lost control of that aspect of his life, and is no longer representative of a well-adjusted individual. I suggest he's not suitable for a career in nurturing vulnerable children. I wouldn't want him around kids, any more than I'd want any mentally ill person having access to them.

I think children are too important for us to be lax about that, and higher standards are warranted. They guy should find another job, until he's addressed his problem.

That seems like a fair point. Positive role models are a good thing I suppose. But what if a transsexual teacher were some sort of genius like Alan Turing, for example. Turing was, of course, persecuted by the British government after the war for being gay. He killed himself as a result and Britain probably lost one of their brightest stars who probably would have gone on to do more great things.

I don't know if it is true of the teacher in question, however, if a transgender teacher is exceptionally good at teaching, then wouldn't it be a tragedy to keep him/her away from a profession that always has a demand for talented teachers? Conversely, suppose a person was just the most upstanding person in the world, a real saint, but didn't know the first thing about teaching, Should we just drop people like that in the classrooms so that kids can look at them and want to emulate them but the kids come out of the class ignorant and uneducated?

I'm guessing one answer would be that we should want teachers that exemplify both attributes; positive role model and good at teaching, however, schools right now seem to be more beggars than choosers. Teaching is an often thankless job and a lot of people would rather do something else less stressful and better paying.

What rolemodel could be more positive than somebody who has faced difficulty in their life and overcome it by remaining true to themselves rather than being beaten down by a series of judgmental little men like you and Mannie?

I don't believe your story by the way. It looks like bullshit from Facebook, a slice of red meat to fire up small minded conservative blow hards.

When somebody is certain in themselves that they do not belong to their biological gender, if you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty, you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind. You, Mannie, Daschund, Henry, and all the other reactionaries really haven't thought the implications of that through. You for instance are now just wrong to be a depressive, you should just cheer up, stop being whiny, worse things happen to other people every day. Do you enjoy it when people cast that sort of thing at you? Does it help in any way?

[henry quirk]

Damn, it would be nice if, in characterizin' my position, other folks could get it right.

This here...

When somebody is certain in themselves that they do not belong to their biological gender, if you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty, you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind. You, Mannie, Daschund, Henry, and all the other reactionaries really haven't thought the implications of that through.

...is complete bullshit.

I've said it over and over and over: if Joe believes he's Josephine, that's fine by me. I, however, won't participate in what I think is a delusion. Pretty much, Joe can do whatever the hell he likes with himself. What he doesn't get to do is force me to accept him as her.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27809

So, no, Flash, I'm not assuming a right of (my) own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind.

What I'm doin' is assertin' and defendin' my right to the contents of my head.

[FlashDangerpants]

Damn, it would be nice if, in characterizin' my position, other folks could get it right.

This here...

When somebody is certain in themselves that they do not belong to their biological gender, if you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty, you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind. You, Mannie, Daschund, Henry, and all the other reactionaries really haven't thought the implications of that through.

...is complete bullshit.

I've said it over and over and over: if Joe believes he's Josephine, that's fine by me. I, however, won't participate in what I think is a delusion. Pretty much, Joe can do whatever the hell he likes with himself. What he doesn't get to do is force me to accept him as her.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27809

So, no, Flash, I'm not assuming a right of (my) own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind.

What I'm doin' is assertin' and defendin' my right to the contents of my head.

Cool. So in no way are you asserting that Josephine is actually wrong or mistaken. You are instead assenting that everybody makes up their own mind and as such there is no right or wrong to the matter. I feel like you didn't approve when I asserted something similar, but perhaps my feeble memory is to blame.

[henry quirk]

Damn, it would be nice if, in characterizin' my position, other folks could get it right.

This here...

When somebody is certain in themselves that they do not belong to their biological gender, if you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty, you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind. You, Mannie, Daschund, Henry, and all the other reactionaries really haven't thought the implications of that through.

...is complete bullshit.

I've said it over and over and over: if Joe believes he's Josephine, that's fine by me. I, however, won't participate in what I think is a delusion. Pretty much, Joe can do whatever the hell he likes with himself. What he doesn't get to do is force me to accept him as her.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27809

So, no, Flash, I'm not assuming a right of (my) own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind.

What I'm doin' is assertin' and defendin' my right to the contents of my head.

Cool. So in no way are you asserting that Josephine is actually wrong or mistaken. You are instead assenting that everybody makes up their own mind and as such there is no right or wrong to the matter. I feel like you didn't approve when I asserted something similar, but perhaps my feeble memory is to blame.

No, no, no: Joe is wrong and deluded. He's ill. But that's his business. He makes it my business when he demands I accept him as her, which I won't do cuz he is not she.

-----

Sumthin' to nosh on...

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may- ... t-fantasy/

[FlashDangerpants]

Damn, it would be nice if, in characterizin' my position, other folks could get it right.

This here...

When somebody is certain in themselves that they do not belong to their biological gender, if you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty, you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind. You, Mannie, Daschund, Henry, and all the other reactionaries really haven't thought the implications of that through.

...is complete bullshit.

I've said it over and over and over: if Joe believes he's Josephine, that's fine by me. I, however, won't participate in what I think is a delusion. Pretty much, Joe can do whatever the hell he likes with himself. What he doesn't get to do is force me to accept him as her.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27809

So, no, Flash, I'm not assuming a right of (my) own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind.

What I'm doin' is assertin' and defendin' my right to the contents of my head.

Cool. So in no way are you asserting that Josephine is actually wrong or mistaken. You are instead assenting that everybody makes up their own mind and as such there is no right or wrong to the matter. I feel like you didn't approve when I asserted something similar, but perhaps my feeble memory is to blame.

No, no, no: Joe is wrong and deluded. He's ill. But that's his business. He makes it my business when he demands I accept him as her, which I won't do cuz he is not she.

-----

Sumthin' to nosh on...

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may- ... t-fantasy/

So the content of Joe's mind is not proper? Joe's mind contains a wrong idea about Joe's gender identitiy.

[henry quirk]

Cool. So in no way are you asserting that Josephine is actually wrong or mistaken. You are instead assenting that everybody makes up their own mind and as such there is no right or wrong to the matter. I feel like you didn't approve when I asserted something similar, but perhaps my feeble memory is to blame.

No, no, no: Joe is wrong and deluded. He's ill. But that's his business. He makes it my business when he demands I accept him as her, which I won't do cuz he is not she.

An example: I see Joe all gussied in his Josephine get up. we may be shoppin' in the same store or standin' next to each other in the same movie line. I note his lunacy to myself, and go about my business. I got no obligation, as I reckon things, to confront Joe on this, or any other, matter. My mindin' my own business is not acceptance of Joe's delusion, it's just me, mindin' my own business.

So the content of Joe's mind is not proper? Joe's mind contains a wrong idea about Joe's gender identitiy.

Joe is a sick puppy.

Again: Joe can pretend to be a girl, may actually believe he's a girl, but he is not, and never will be, a girl.

Not my business, till he makes it mine.

To be as clear as possible...

If you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty,

Joe has the right to decide anything for himself and to be be as certain as he likes, about anything. And he has the right to be as wrong as he likes. He doesn't however, have the right to decide for me.

you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind.

No. I advocate no solutions for Joe, or about Joe: I, like him, merely claim ownership of my own thinkin'.

-----

Sumthin' to nosh on...

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may- ... t-fantasy/

[FlashDangerpants]

Cool. So in no way are you asserting that Josephine is actually wrong or mistaken. You are instead assenting that everybody makes up their own mind and as such there is no right or wrong to the matter. I feel like you didn't approve when I asserted something similar, but perhaps my feeble memory is to blame.

No, no, no: Joe is wrong and deluded. He's ill. But that's his business. He makes it my business when he demands I accept him as her, which I won't do cuz he is not she.

An example: I see Joe all gussied in his Josephine get up. we may be shoppin' in the same store or standin' next to each other in the same movie line. I note his lunacy to myself, and go about my business. I got no obligation, as I reckon things, to confront Joe on this, or any other, matter. My mindin' my own business is not acceptance of Joe's delusion, it's just me, mindin' my own business.

So the content of Joe's mind is not proper? Joe's mind contains a wrong idea about Joe's gender identitiy.

Joe is a sick puppy.

Again: Joe can pretend to be a girl, may actually believe he's a girl, but he is not, and never will be, a girl.

Not my business, till he makes it mine.

-----

Sumthin' to nosh on...

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may- ... t-fantasy/

I didn't say you had to take any overt action. You are nonetheless asserting that Joe's mind contains a wrong idea about Joe's gender identitiy and that your mind contains a correct version of that information. Yes?