Schools reject Obama transgender decree: ‘Straight into the paper shredder’

a reply to: jonnywhite

I think its just you who really feels threatened, its ok

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
I agree with you. Bigotry isn't just racial or cultural. It extends to everything. The justifications for the bigotry are usually tied to halftruths or truths inflated to unreasonable proportions to afford them the luxury.

I witnessed this not too long ago. So it's fresh.

It just needs to be understood prejudice is in almost everyone, maybe even everyone. In the right circumstances, it's exposed.

We are on the cusp of the age of privately funded school districts, and the fall of public school attendance and quality

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

im not offended. At all. in fact, your 'wursh' comment had me almost spit coffee. my dad said that and 'dorter' in place of 'daughter'.

but i will point out that his accent has nothing to do with what he says. i share his accent, and some of his viewpoints, but not all.

i don't like obama. and don't consider him my leader. hes the POTUS, but that historically means very little to me. i have severe criticisms for all that have served in my lifetime.

originally posted by: jonnywhite


It just needs to be understood prejudice is in almost everyone, maybe even everyone. In the right circumstances, it's exposed.

im severely prejudiced against people who are bigots and people who are stupid. im not afraid to admit it proudly.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: jonnywhite


It just needs to be understood prejudice is in almost everyone, maybe even everyone. In the right circumstances, it's exposed.

im severely prejudiced against people who are bigots and people who are stupid. im not afraid to admit it proudly.

What's stupid? There're a lot of people in this country classified as stupid, depending who you ask. You have to be careful.

My comment about it happening recently has to do with the wildlife refuge in Oregon. The protesters are obviously dumb and criminal on a lot of fronts and deserved SOME of the complaints. But the amount I saw was more than that, it was definitely prejudice. The words which came to my mind at the time were "mob rule". That's how it felt. It was repulsive.

Again I'm not saying they were right in occupying it. But it's like the gates were opened and the people came and exploited hte occasion to expose their prejudices of cowboys and conservatives in general. Who cares about decency? Only whne it serves them. We're not much above animals.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

im severely prejudiced against people who are bigots and people who are stupid. im not afraid to admit it proudly.

I have a T-shirt that says: "I Don't Play Well With Stupid People".

It's so me

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Texans are a very independent people, but the state itself is not well set up to go it alone. A large part of what makes the state successful is your lack of a sales tax which is then offset by higher per capita federal dollars going to the state (which we then get one of the worst returns in the nation on). If Texas went it alone, taxes would skyrocket and business would leave since it would no longer be as attractive. Other infrastructure problems like the port situation would quickly appear (you could ship nothing by land, and ports easily blockaded), and the border situation would be a nightmare shifting from the feds covering 40% of your border to the state covering 100% of it.

Texas would quickly collapse.

originally posted by: Annee
Separate but Equal

It's worked so well in the past.

One thing is to have respect for all people, and another entirely different thing is to impose the will of one group of people on the rest. And we are talking about a small group of people imposing their will on the majority.

If the LGBT people wanted to legally be together, why couldn't they make up their own ceremony? No, they had to change a ceremony that has existed for thousands of years into what they wanted it to be.

Why can't schools simply separate a stall or a couple of stalls for transgendered people but in the bathroom of the sex they were born with? No, instead they want to force everyone to accept their view.

Acceptance of each other's beliefs is one thing, and forcing everyone to the will of a few is a completely different thing.

People should respect each other, but forcing your will upon others is not respect.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Texans are a very independent people, but the state itself is not well set up to go it alone. A large part of what makes the state successful is your lack of a sales tax which is then offset by higher per capita federal dollars going to the state (which we then get one of the worst returns in the nation on). If Texas went it alone, taxes would skyrocket and business would leave since it would no longer be as attractive. Other infrastructure problems like the port situation would quickly appear (you could ship nothing by land, and ports easily blockaded), and the border situation would be a nightmare shifting from the feds covering 40% of your border to the state covering 100% of it.

Texas would quickly collapse.

No, we have a sales tax. 6% at the state level, and it varies at the local. 8.25% is a good average, though.

We also have an 8.25% state sales tax on mixed beverages on top of the 6.7% mixed beverage tax that is tendered.

The state taxes the everloving crap out of us, honestly. The only thing we don't have: state income tax. Because its vile to tax a mans labor.

ETA: if we are going to talk Texas economy....a quick primer for you:

en.wikipedia.org...

We have a 12th largest economy on the planet, and lead the US in exports. I think Texas would fare just fine if we had to strike out on our own.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Whoa now....if the federal government and insurance companies would respect civil unions, then it would never have been a real issue.

Annee is right: separate but equal doesn't work.

And the rights of the individual, even if they are a minority of one, must be observed. That is what our nation is all about. SO you can't use "mob rule" as logic here.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
...
And the rights of the individual, even if they are a minority of one, must be observed. That is what our nation is all about. SO you can't use "mob rule" as logic here.

Yes, observed, but not imposed on the rest.

It is not about mob rule, but freedom of choice. Freedom of choice does not simply end in the rights of the few. What about the rights of the children and people that have to accept this mandate and are not part of the LGBT culture? Their rights don't count?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: yuppa

We aren't a state. we are a republic that entered the union via a treaty. We have always had the theoretical ability to remove ourselves from the union, or to vote to fracture our state into smaller states that are easier to manage for a central government.

We aren't a true state. We are a nation that agree to join up with the US. We even fought our war of independance. And won.

The only folks who might hand wring over us seceeding are some of the folks along i-35. Well, and maybe the folks on base when we seized the US military bases. And the Federal Reserve in Dallas.

If texas tried to claim the military bases the US would do just as it did in the civil war. Those properties are US property not TEXAS property. Same as the reserve. Texas would get a UN coalition used against it very soon if they did that.

Texas should had never joined in the first place. they joined to protect them from mexico. Im sure texas didnt read the fine print on the deal.

Anyway the US could embargo texas and also keep mexico from sending in supplies. no fly zones would happen,and useage of US military hardware would be deemed terrorism by anyone but official US army not texas republic forces.
Damming the water flowing into texas as well as guarding the ocean entry to prevent supply that way would ensure texans starve and thirst to death.

This would get very ugly very very fast if Texas pushed the issue. If its just Texas secceeding its gonna fail.

But this is all because a TEXANS PRIDE and refusing to budge on a simple issue of a bathroom. Way to go Texas.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Teikiatsu

More and more I am agreeing with the theory that while liberals and conservatives use the same language/words, our definitions are wildly different and that is why we can't have a conversation about anything.

Well - there is that

But this topic concerns us all. Every one of us that still believes in human rights

You do believe in human rights don't you?

That isn't a trick question - and my language is plain

Why wouldn't I believe in human rights?

My rebuttal question is, what is the definition of a 'right'?

To me a right is something inherent to you that does not require a bureaucracy to maintain and does not place a burden on any other human being. Once you pass that threshold it is no longer a right and closer to a privilege or agreement.

For example, there is no right to healthcare. While you have the ability to take steps to be healthy, it requires a burden of time and resources of other people to provide goods and services to maintain your health beyond exercise and eating healthy.

There is no right to education. We all have the right to go and learn on our own. We do not have the right to force other people to teach us anything.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Profusion

Schools that reject this are losing out. THey need the federal money. The hate is so strong and sad.

not really. especially if the state of texas would do away with the 'robin hood' law for school funding. we have 2 school districts in West Texas worth in excess of $5bil each due to the oil value in their land holdings. This isn't including the valuations on pad sites that gain tax revenue for all taxable entities in the area.

to be honest, we are currently at a point where a local ISD would do better walking away from the federal government entirely, and focusing on education instead of testing. That would give all taxpayers a bigger bang for the buck.

This whole bathroom debacle....is only meant to make the race for our highest office seem just a little less outrageous.

Excellent point there. If Texas walks away from federal money and the legal strings attached to it, they would have a free hand to set their own curriculum without interference. And where Texas goes in education, so go the textbooks.

This could have massive repercussions. I'll get the popcorn.

originally posted by: yuppa
1/3rd isnt the entire state. And since the constitution has been fixed to prevent secession

Where exactly does the COTUS mention that?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

No, we have a sales tax. 6% at the state level, and it varies at the local. 8.25% is a good average, though.

We also have an 8.25% state sales tax on mixed beverages on top of the 6.7% mixed beverage tax that is tendered.

The state taxes the everloving crap out of us, honestly. The only thing we don't have: state income tax. Because its vile to tax a mans labor.

ETA: if we are going to talk Texas economy....a quick primer for you:

en.wikipedia.org...

We have a 12th largest economy on the planet, and lead the US in exports. I think Texas would fare just fine if we had to strike out on our own.

Sorry, I meant an income tax. Texas is fiercely independent and that's an asset if trying to strike out on their own, but the economy just wouldn't support it. The state's financial status is largely based on federal subsidies to the state (which Texas has one of the worst return rates on), as well as a bunch of exports that would get shut down in the event of a war to break away.

The state would be like Iran, lots of potential but with blockades/sanctions preventing most of that potential from being realized.

originally posted by: majkaveli
"“He ain’t my president and he can’t tell me what to do. The letter is going straight into the paper shredder.”

How can anyone take this idiot seriously? Obama isn't his president? The majority of people in this country elected him, he should promptly get the # out and move somewhere else.

He's right, actually.

The official title is 'The President of the United States', not 'The President of the People of the United States'. A majority of the Electoral College voted for Obama. The Popular Vote means nothing, election-wise. There is a reason for that.

Under our federal system, the President is intended to interact with the individual States and Foreign nations. The President is not a representative position. The President is not intended to be directly involved in the affairs of the People. That's what our Representatives are for. That's why the idea of the President sending an edict to public schools that entirely circumvents the Federal and State legislatures, as well as the State Governors is so egregious. It is yet more proof (if any more was needed) that our government structure is totally out of alignment with the original intent.

Getting caught up here so this isn't about Texas or Obama. In fact, just skip this post if I'm not replying to you.

originally posted by: skynet2015
There are two branches of the gender movement upon which legislation is based. The first group does not agree with the legislation, while the second group only exists as a government control tactic. Unfortunately, the second group has adherents and followers.

The first group is sincere and prefers to blend in with society's norms, safely transition if at all possible, and seeks laws and protections to live a normal life. The second group abuses the conflicts the first group experiences seeking normalcy, and instead encourages society to reject normalcy, at the expense of the first group and the majority of the population at large.

The legislation and directives in place are a political war from the second group, at the expense of the first group....

Impressive! Knowledgeable and very rare to come across someone that is even remotely aware of these perspectives.

I am reluctant to mention The Transgender Borg Collective and the Transsexual Taliban/women born transsexual discussion or the ways the lives and narratives of trans kids has also been co-opted by some for legitimacy because it only further confuses already confused people. I consider myself an advocate (not an activist) for trans rights but it hard to separate the serious needs of those with medical problems from those with social issues. There is some overlap but it is unfortunate that more of a distinction isn't made, but that's not PC and people will use these points of division for attack purposes. I will likely get in trouble or offend someone if I say more, which I've done in the past and don't want to do again, but I definitely have some attitudes and opinions I don't share here because they don't tow the Borg majority party line. It is unfortunate and does make me uncomfortable at times. Heck, even Janet Mock has been drinking the Kool-Aid but I understand why and still respect her.

Now imagine this:
The transsexual person is like a building. Being alive is like being set on fire.
The doctor is the firefighter. Their goal is to get from the fire station to the building, and put the fire out.

Some buildings are made of sturdier stuff, wetter wood. They are harder to burn down.
This is the same thing as the gene pool the transsexual comes from. Some genetics are by default more masculine or feminine. So being from a gene pool that is objectively more masculine in secondary sex characteristics, when you are transitioning from female to male, would be like being a sturdy building. Being from the gene pool that favors your current gender would be like a building made of kindling covered in lighter fluid with previous fire damage.

Not quite sure I understand your analogy. Thank goodness for firefighters though.

Oddly, members of the first group of transsexuals had no actual desire to establish an androgynous gender fluid society. If anything, the notion is anathema, as a person attempting to define themselves would become flustered and frustrated if the thing they became ceased to exist as a concept. A transsexual seeks to become a male or female. They do not seek to become Pat.

Yeah, isn't it funny that nearly all "real" transsexual people are usually binary and generally blend in. See, even making the suggestion that some people are "real" or more trans than others or that all transgender people aren't the same as those with transsexual medical histories is specious and elitist or separatist or truscum but if you are familiar with these arguments, you understand what I'm saying. 99% of the people here won't so carry on folks if this train of thought leaves the station without you.

Summary: "Transgender" is not some homogeneous monolithic entity where everyone is on the same page or with the same needs and issues.

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Freija

If you don't know what it means, then try thinking about it harder. Why call it gender identity and not just gender? It's like someone asking you if you have brown eyes, and saying that brown eyes are your eye color identity. It seems superfluous to me, more words than are necessary. Plus the fact that, once again, eye color isn't an identity just like man isn't an identity. These things are attributes.

Once the different concept of sex, what's between your legs, and gender, what's between your ears, has been realized, "gender" is far more nuanced and complicated and it does require additional language to discuss because there are different facets to gender. I didn't make up the terms and if I had, "identity" or "identifies with" would not be words I would have used but there does have to be some common ground for communicating. Even then it's too hard for some.

All people have an internal sense of their own gender - this is one of the very cores or foundations of personality and who we all are as people. Most folks aren't even cognizant or aware of this sense within themselves but if you ask, people can immediately say "I'm a boy/man" or "I'm a girl/woman". People also display the affectations of their internalized gender in how they look, act, speak or sometimes in the things they do or careers they have. These are the ways we express gender. Culturally, there are certain expectations for gendered behaviors.

These are called gender identity, gender expression and gender roles. What is so superfluous about that?

That's part of what warrants some suspicion about the whole thing, IMO. When a concept doesn't make much sense, throw in a bunch of new, superfluous terms to confuse and jumble the logic. It's you lot who are making things more complicated than they have to be, not me.

See if this video hits on some of the points you are trying to make? If this is what you're saying, I would be inclined to agree with you. (note: adult language and the T-word)

You think I'm not on your "side", but I am. If everyone quit the identity BS, there would be no reason to pick transgenders out of the crowd and scrutinize them.

If somebody looks different or doesn't fit into prescribed black and white boxes, who are the ones picking them out and scrutinizing? Why do people care what they are? It is human nature to identify, categorize and label.

Everyone would recognize people for what they are-- a single, unique individual with one singular identity. Identity politics only makes it easier to ostracize others.

Wow, that sounds pretty boring and honestly, as a species we are more diverse than the black and white world you seem to want things to be. Everyone has multiple identities that blend together to create the unique person that they are.

I get where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. Who ever came up with the "I identify as" thing should probably be shot but what other language is there to describe things? I've never "identified" as something I was, I just was.

You may like this article?

Facebook has totally reinvented human identity: Why it’s even worse than you think

You're, like, playing into "their" hands, knowwhatI'msaying?

I think I may be getting the gist of what you're saying but now I want to know who "they" are?