"Non Binary" Teacher CAUGHT GROOMING Class In Front of Parents!

a reply to: TzarChasm

OK.

Well thanks - I guess.

a reply to: Annee

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, this topic is about people who want to trespass, physically or psychologically. Intruding on the domain between parent and child is an emergency resort, directly opposite the political motives I'm sensing here. Guardian discretion has always been paramount and should remain such.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
There is no such thing as a "non-binary" person. The sooner everyone accepts this fact, the sooner we can get on with the real discussion.

Won't happen. Cope.

We dont have to "cope" we just have to deal with you groomers

Thanks! I couldn't have said it better.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee
"Gays, transgender, non-binary have always been."

Go on, finish.......

Go on now.

She's like that. Ask her to name one single non-binary person from the 1800s. She won't answer or back up what she says. Because she can't.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee
"Gays, transgender, non-binary have always been."

Go on, finish.......

Go on now.

She's like that. Ask her to name one single non-binary person from the 1800s. She won't answer or back up what she says. Because she can't.

Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

The birth of anti-cross-dressing laws stemmed from the increase in non-traditional gender expression during the spread of Americas frontier, and the will to reinforce the two-gender system which was threatened by those who deviated from it.[28] Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio. In 1849, Ohio passed a law which prohibited its citizens from publicly presenting themselves "in a dress not belonging to his or her sex", and before WWI, 45 cities in the US went on to pass anti-cross-dressing laws.[29] These cities were noticeably focused in the West,[28] however across America many cities and states passed laws outlawing things such as public indecency or appearing in public under a disguise - effectively encompassing cross-dressing without mentioning sex or gender. The laws which did this often did not lend to an easy prosecution on the grounds of cross-dressing, because they were designed to prohibit presenting in disguise in order to commit a criminal offense. Because of this, the laws mainly served the purpose of allowing police to harass cross-dressers.

There is significant documentation of the origins of these laws in San Francisco. The city passed its anti-cross-dressing law in 1863, and the specific criminalization of one publicly presenting "in a dress not belonging to his or her sex" was included in a wider law which criminalized general public indecency such as nudity.[30] This conflation of cross-dressing with acts such as prostitution was not unintentional, as many prostitutes at the time used cross-dressing to signify their availability.[30] This association between the two furthered the perception of cross-dressing as a perversion, and the law was effectively “one of the city’s very first “good morals and decency” laws".[30]

Throughout time, anti-cross-dressing laws became difficult to apply, as the definitions of feminine and masculine presentation grew more obscure. After the Stonewall riots of 1969, cross-dressing arrests decreased and became much less common.[31] Today, while there are little to no laws directly protecting transgender individuals from discrimination and harassment, the majority of anti-cross-dressing laws have been overturned.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Annee
When I was a child in the early 50's -- I had a disabled mom and no dad. Neither of which were ever addressed at school. Should a 4/5 year-old have to explain to classmates "what the deal is"?

So, you're saying that is what screwed you up as an adult?

Or are you saying it didn't screw you up as an adult and you feel you're perfectly normal?

Which is it?

originally posted by: quintessentone
Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

Thank you for that long-winded response. So you can't name a single non-binary person from the 1800s either, eh?

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: quintessentone
Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

Thank you for that long-winded response. So you can't name a single non-binary person from the 1800s either, eh?

Not unless I search Ohio's criminal arrest records from that time, but the records (plural) exist so therefore proof, one just has to go search for it.

Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio.

(From my wikipedia source above)

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheRedneck

So you don't think Mom/Dad should raise their own children?

TheRedneck

It's a stereotype of society.

Grooming is grooming.

This comment made me really angry. Because you make it sound as if parents are a bad thing and they certainly are not.

Your interpretations are yours.

I never said parents are a bad thing.

Perception is reality. You said mum/dad is a social construct. I know that you don't like social constructs, hence I interpret it as bad.
I am not being funny when I ask genuinely where this is all leading to? Why are average kids told that there is no gender stereotype, yet trans people totally ransack stereotypes. I have never seen a man looking like a butch lesbian, despite them often claiming they are lesbians.

I've never seen a girl who says she is a a boy with long hair wearing a dress. Even though boys are encouraged to wear dresses to school. I am really confused and I am old. Can you imagine what this all does to the brain of someone who has only just been speaking and walking for 2/3 years?

Everything is contradictive. Nothing makes sense. Most people accept trans people if they just stop making a big fuss. Just put on a dress and live your life. But they do, we all have to change our whole language and established ideas for a few people or we get a visit form the police, children are being dragged [!] into it at school.

This will never go down well with a majority who doesn't want that.

So what do you want?

Acceptance? - Done.
Equality? - Overdone.
Special treatments? - Overdone.
Influencing children? - Too much.
For all the world to be trans and gay? - Trying hard, not gonna happen.
For all children to have no clue who they are, even though it's obvious? - Trying hard. Majority will not let this happen.
For all stereotypes to be eradicated and replaced by individual follies? - Culture and Nature will step in and stop that.
Any idea what you'll do if we did all of the above? - Nope. Nobody has an answer for that.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: infolurker

Talking about it is grooming? Here is what's wrong with you folks...
You'd rather have it bared from public discourse?
it's sex ed, get out of your Christian sex dungeons, or at least admit that you need the world to be censored so you can feel non offended, oh wait where did I hear that before....

Your all the same little snowflakes, Christians with their reee and liberals with their screech... All thinking their moral highground is justified while both standing on a pile of crap trying to virtue signal.

Carry on...

SCREW YOU, Im not arguing it as a Christian. So now what talking points do you have?

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: infolurker

I just watched it. One of the kids was first to bring up non-binary.

Nope - that or you didn't watch the same one I watched.

Another kid said "they" all before the teacher even said anything.

Are you clueless? The only way these kids would have brought that up is if they had already been idoctrinated by either this same gender dysphoric twat or another one.

Nope. Sex doesn't belong in ANY class with kids as young as those, not in any way shape or form.

If you cannot see that, then you are a groomer yourself, which makes you supportive of pedos.

You are sick.

Also, no matter where your kid is, they are going to eventually run into a non-binary or trans identifying kid.

Nope. Of course, they will almost certainly run into some poor little tyke that has been brainwashed into thinking they are some mythical gender other than male or female - because of people like YOU.

I really dont get all the outrage about it. You cant control society or other people. What exists, exists. Whether you want trans or non-binary, or people who identify as wolves exist or not.. they do.. and they will.

Of course they do, and all my kids have to know is that these people are mentally ill and need help, because there are only boys and girls. PERIOD.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Cheese and rice dude, that's cold.

May be cold, but it was pretty cold when she divulged that in an older thread... after questioning my performance as a father.

Ice begets ice. Redneck gives as good as he gets.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: quintessentone
Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

Thank you for that long-winded response. So you can't name a single non-binary person from the 1800s either, eh?

Not unless I search Ohio's criminal arrest records from that time, but the records (plural) exist so therefore proof, one just has to go search for it.

Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio.

(From my wikipedia source above)

Wikipedia eh?

Fine.

From wikis source:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation organization defines cross-dressers specifically as heterosexual men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup and accessories culturally associated with women.

Nothing about non binary.

Now, please stop using nonsense sources. Youre making midwits look even worse.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: quintessentone
Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

Thank you for that long-winded response. So you can't name a single non-binary person from the 1800s either, eh?

Not unless I search Ohio's criminal arrest records from that time, but the records (plural) exist so therefore proof, one just has to go search for it.

Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio.

(From my wikipedia source above)

Wikipedia eh?

Fine.

From wikis source:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation organization defines cross-dressers specifically as heterosexual men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup and accessories culturally associated with women.

Nothing about non binary.

Now, please stop using nonsense sources. Youre making midwits look even worse.

That source is nonsense because we would have to go back in time to 1800's Ohio and question the cross-dressers as to whether or not they were homosexuals who liked to wear women's clothes, or if they thought themselves as women. So since we can't do that neither of us have the answers, now do we?

originally posted by: quintessentone

What I'm trying to get across is that there is no such thing as a "non-binary" person. And because of this, there could not have been one in the 1800s. Ergo, you won't be able to find one from the 1800s. You do get what I'm saying, right?

What you're trying to say would be like me saying there was a carpool lane in the Appian Way.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: quintessentone
Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

Thank you for that long-winded response. So you can't name a single non-binary person from the 1800s either, eh?

Not unless I search Ohio's criminal arrest records from that time, but the records (plural) exist so therefore proof, one just has to go search for it.

Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio.

(From my wikipedia source above)

Wikipedia eh?

Fine.

From wikis source:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation organization defines cross-dressers specifically as heterosexual men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup and accessories culturally associated with women.

Nothing about non binary.

Now, please stop using nonsense sources. Youre making midwits look even worse.

That source is nonsense because we would have to go back in time to 1800's Ohio and question the cross-dressers as to whether or not they were homosexuals who liked to wear women's clothes, or if they thought themselves as women. So since we can't do that neither of us have the answers, now do we?

You have an issue with your own source?


What part of that is my problem?

a reply to: Annee

According to research children become aware of gender differences around age 3/4.

Sure, I knew I was a boy by that age. I didn't understand why I was a boy and some of the other kids were girls, though. All I knew was the girls had cooties.

I wanted to be a lot of things and people when I was little... I'd play Hulk or Wolverine. I'd imitate Dad, sometimes even Mom's mannerisms. That didn't mean I "identified" as Mom, Dad, Wolverine, or the Hulk. It meant I had an imagination.

I also thought the girls had it so much easier because they were girls. Boys would fight, and I didn't like fighting. Thankfully, no adult in authority over me ever sat me down and told me "Oh, well, you can just be a girl if you want to." I'd probably have jumped at the chance, then figured out what I learned years later when my daughter was growing up... girls have it just as bad as boys, just in different ways.

Kids that age may know there's a difference, but that does not mean they understand the difference. For example, you have heard of a "brain scan" but you obviously don't understand anything about them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

This is where the real discussion begins.

You know what it was like being a boy, then a man. The competition, the hormone laden urges, the societal aspect of fitting in.

Its the same for women however with the added bonus of periods and a body that changes more drastically than their male counterparts.

Now add onto that a society thats surveilled and damn near everything is a facade.

Now imagine theres a pill or a surgery or a cult? That can make it so you dont need to do those difficult things!

a reply to: Annee

God is a lie -- non-binary is real people.

Boy is that one gonna come back to bite you in a big way

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: quintessentone
Nobody really can because dressing in clothes representative of anything other than your biological sex was outlawed.

Thank you for that long-winded response. So you can't name a single non-binary person from the 1800s either, eh?

Not unless I search Ohio's criminal arrest records from that time, but the records (plural) exist so therefore proof, one just has to go search for it.

Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio.

(From my wikipedia source above)

Wikipedia eh?

Fine.

From wikis source:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation organization defines cross-dressers specifically as heterosexual men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup and accessories culturally associated with women.

Nothing about non binary.

Now, please stop using nonsense sources. Youre making midwits look even worse.

That source is nonsense because we would have to go back in time to 1800's Ohio and question the cross-dressers as to whether or not they were homosexuals who liked to wear women's clothes, or if they thought themselves as women. So since we can't do that neither of us have the answers, now do we?

You have an issue with your own source?


What part of that is my problem?

I don't have an issue with them defining the word 'cross-dressers' within that narrow context, I have an issue with defining what types of people wore clothes not of their own sex in the 1800s. Maybe the people back then didn't even understand why they wanted to wear the opposite sex clothes. There is no new word besides cross-dressing available. Was it drag? Was it cross-dressing? Was it something else?