6 ms·

I wouldn't equate the obvious overstep of drag policing with the rather more complex issue of abortion. It's not at all clear that "viability" is anything more

I wouldn't equate the obvious overstep of drag policing with the rather more complex issue of abortion. It's not at all clear that "viability" is anything more than a hacky placeholder definition for when human life begins. I personally do agree that abortion should be legal. I can't however help but reach the conclusion that it's still the willful termination of a human life (read: murder). Justifiable murder, but murder nonetheless. I can therefore sympathize with those who hold the view that it should be illegal. Also, re: drag policing, obviously wrong-headed as it is, there seems to be a lot of popular backlash against cultural indoctrination by schools. Schools should endeavour to soberly, objectively teach children about the world, and leave defining right and wrong to parents as much as possible. As much as we may disagree, you should be entitled to raise your child with a racist or homophobic worldview. Trying to correct for this is not the government's job. It's that pesky American individualism again.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> Schools should endeavour to soberly, objectively teach children about the world, and leave defining right and wrong to parents as much as possible. They are certainly trying, but the sober, objective reality is "Some people dress using gender signifiers counter to the traditional ones for myriad reasons, and almost all of those reasons are harmless." The political friction is coming from the people who think that lesson is, somehow, already too politically charged to share. > you should be entitled to raise your child with a racist or homophobic worldview. Trying to correct for this is not the government's job. That's very thorny "we live in a society" territory because in point of fact, the entire underpinning of public education as an institution is that a democratic society requires a populace educated in the practice of citizenry because they have the collective responsibility / burden / obligation to be citizens. "I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength. 1. that of general education to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom..." [Thomas Jefferson]. That obligation ties into the relatively-new concept of "nations" (as opposed to previous structures of clan / tribe / subject of a king / etc.). And in that context: no, it would not be okay for the public education system to just teach racism, because racism is caustic to the national constitution. When this became apparent during the mid-20th century, the racists in some states temporarily suspended public education. As a useful rule of thumb: always be deeply suspect of those who would claim that topic X is not appropriate to teach at all or, when faced with choosing conservation of what they know vs. allowing public education, would torch the education.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with an objective take on identity and subculture formation, but it seems like pretty advanced material inappropriate to elementary school students. Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. The lessons that are too politically charged are unsurprisingly those that have the least evidential support - namely those rooted in social constructionism. Even the concept of "gender" isn't well-defined enough to teach a child, given that even experts can't ELI5 "what is a woman?". Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). > ...judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom > ...is caustic to the national constitution These two things are actually not contradictory. Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. This should be OK in a free and pluralistic society.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced material for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. Kids crossdress in kindergarten; I don't know at what age discussion of why one does or does not do that is appropriate, but I can tell you that absent some rules it's just yet another fun game they play. > Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). That implies that when a boy picks up the feather boa in kindergarten the appropriate response from public education is to do nothing, right? > Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. Ah, but here's the rub: we had a whole fight about that topic specifically and decided to kick it out because of the damage we observed it doing. Separate but equal and its ilk didn't work; we have a cultural narrative of "all men created equal" (for temporally-expanding definitions of 'men') that is incompatible with racism. On that issue, the nation (as a cultural construct) is pretty decided. There are plenty who would love to reopen the question. The public education system is not obligated to give them a line-item on the SOLs. They can and will try to seize one, of course, via the democratic process (as is their right, and those who disagree with them must be aware that this is their intended design).
NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
"when human life begins" is easy. Biology, the science, makes it clear that such cells are alive. That definition of alive is the only one that can matter to thinking, non-superstitious people. There are no souls or spirits. Furthermore, the science of genetics makes it quite clear that we won't do a DNA test and discover that the fetus is a wombat, or a giraffe, or a sea urchin. It would test as Homo sapiens, which is the definition of human. It's objectively the truth.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  We kill living human cells all the time without issue. Besides, science cannot provide definitions. There is no hypothesis to test that disproves "an organism is alive when it can X and Y".
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
    How many of those cells have you killed that were physiologically whole, were arranged in a shape of having two arms, two legs, two eyes, and every major organ but especially a brain? How many were complete organisms? > There is no hypothesis to test that disproves "an organism is alive when it can X and Y". 1. Metabolize 2. Homeostasis 3. Responds to stimuli 4. Growth 5. Reproduction Never learned the list in school? It often includes "composed of cells", but that one might not make sense for xenobiology. There are people who only believe in science, I guess, when it gives them the answers they were hoping for anyway.
    - akvadrako 4y ago
      > 1. Metabolize 2. Homeostasis 3. Responds to stimuli 4. Growth 5. Reproduction That's a definition, but how do you prove scientifically it's the right one? The question doesn't even make sense. > Never learned the list in school? Being taught in school doesn't make something science.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      So if physiological wholeness is a criterion, that gives license to both abort before physiological wholeness occurs (so no issue with Plan b and similar treatments) and to abort right up to the moment of birth for any fetus with imperfections past a certain criteria (to be clarified later), right?

shadowgovt 4y ago

> Schools should endeavour to soberly, objectively teach children about the world, and leave defining right and wrong to parents as much as possible. They are certainly trying, but the sober, objective reality is "Some people dress using gender signifiers counter to the traditional ones for myriad reasons, and almost all of those reasons are harmless." The political friction is coming from the people who think that lesson is, somehow, already too politically charged to share. > you should be entitled to raise your child with a racist or homophobic worldview. Trying to correct for this is not the government's job. That's very thorny "we live in a society" territory because in point of fact, the entire underpinning of public education as an institution is that a democratic society requires a populace educated in the practice of citizenry because they have the collective responsibility / burden / obligation to be citizens. "I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength. 1. that of general education to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom..." [Thomas Jefferson]. That obligation ties into the relatively-new concept of "nations" (as opposed to previous structures of clan / tribe / subject of a king / etc.). And in that context: no, it would not be okay for the public education system to just teach racism, because racism is caustic to the national constitution. When this became apparent during the mid-20th century, the racists in some states temporarily suspended public education. As a useful rule of thumb: always be deeply suspect of those who would claim that topic X is not appropriate to teach at all or, when faced with choosing conservation of what they know vs. allowing public education, would torch the education.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I'm perfectly fine with an objective take on identity and subculture formation, but it seems like pretty advanced material inappropriate to elementary school students. Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. The lessons that are too politically charged are unsurprisingly those that have the least evidential support - namely those rooted in social constructionism. Even the concept of "gender" isn't well-defined enough to teach a child, given that even experts can't ELI5 "what is a woman?". Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). > ...judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom > ...is caustic to the national constitution These two things are actually not contradictory. Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. This should be OK in a free and pluralistic society.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > Deconstructing societal norms is just too advanced material for young children. It also directly undermines parents who are trying to instill these very norms. Kids crossdress in kindergarten; I don't know at what age discussion of why one does or does not do that is appropriate, but I can tell you that absent some rules it's just yet another fun game they play. > Gender itself is not a plain fact about objective reality (like sex is). That implies that when a boy picks up the feather boa in kindergarten the appropriate response from public education is to do nothing, right? > Being racist doesn't stop you from judging what will secure or endanger your freedom, you may just reach different conclusions than other people. Ah, but here's the rub: we had a whole fight about that topic specifically and decided to kick it out because of the damage we observed it doing. Separate but equal and its ilk didn't work; we have a cultural narrative of "all men created equal" (for temporally-expanding definitions of 'men') that is incompatible with racism. On that issue, the nation (as a cultural construct) is pretty decided. There are plenty who would love to reopen the question. The public education system is not obligated to give them a line-item on the SOLs. They can and will try to seize one, of course, via the democratic process (as is their right, and those who disagree with them must be aware that this is their intended design).

NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago

"when human life begins" is easy. Biology, the science, makes it clear that such cells are alive. That definition of alive is the only one that can matter to thinking, non-superstitious people. There are no souls or spirits. Furthermore, the science of genetics makes it quite clear that we won't do a DNA test and discover that the fetus is a wombat, or a giraffe, or a sea urchin. It would test as Homo sapiens, which is the definition of human. It's objectively the truth.

akvadrako 4y ago
We kill living human cells all the time without issue. Besides, science cannot provide definitions. There is no hypothesis to test that disproves "an organism is alive when it can X and Y".
- NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
  How many of those cells have you killed that were physiologically whole, were arranged in a shape of having two arms, two legs, two eyes, and every major organ but especially a brain? How many were complete organisms? > There is no hypothesis to test that disproves "an organism is alive when it can X and Y". 1. Metabolize 2. Homeostasis 3. Responds to stimuli 4. Growth 5. Reproduction Never learned the list in school? It often includes "composed of cells", but that one might not make sense for xenobiology. There are people who only believe in science, I guess, when it gives them the answers they were hoping for anyway.
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    > 1. Metabolize 2. Homeostasis 3. Responds to stimuli 4. Growth 5. Reproduction That's a definition, but how do you prove scientifically it's the right one? The question doesn't even make sense. > Never learned the list in school? Being taught in school doesn't make something science.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    So if physiological wholeness is a criterion, that gives license to both abort before physiological wholeness occurs (so no issue with Plan b and similar treatments) and to abort right up to the moment of birth for any fetus with imperfections past a certain criteria (to be clarified later), right?