Thread: Cover your eyes, Jonny! Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005710
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There are times when I really hate having breath, being alive and listening to idiot Christians* pontificating on live national radio.

This morning, just before 8am, two parents arrived on the flagship British radio news programme to explain to the nation about how their little son had been so abused at school that they were forced to remove him, care for him at home and take legal action against the school.

What was the terrible thing that happened to their six year old? What was this terror that emotionally scarred the poor chap? Who was to blame for this outrage?

According to the parents in this short radio interview, their boy had seen another child in the school in a skirt. One day the child turned up in trousers, another day they turned up in a skirt (both, note, were school uniform). Which confused the poor blighter in question to the extent that the parents had to take immediate action.

Why, asked the parent, should my child have to put up with this?

The interviewer, who seemed very calm given the obvious idiocy in front of her, asked some searching questions. What about girls wearing trousers (apparently that's not important)? What about trans children experiencing years of abuse leading to regular self-harm and suicide (apparently doesn't happen)?

Girls are girls and boys are boys said the Father.

Because. Because obviously a six year old notices the clothing that other six year olds are wearing to the extent of causing existential crisis. Because obviously a boy wearing a skirt is a sign of something-or-other and is a political outrage inflicted on small children. Because obviously something is being said about a boy who wears a skirt which is different to a girl who wears trousers. Because clearly there is something very... I don't know.. non-masculine about wearing a piece of cloth which opens around the legs rather than which covers the legs. Even though a very large percentage of men around the world do not wear trousers.

Maybe this kid is transgender. Maybe this kid is just a six year old experimenting with clothing choices.

Really, wtf has it got to do with you?

What utter dipshits.

*to be fair, they didn't actually say that they were Christians. But I'd bet all the veg in my allotment that they were.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Version of the story in the Telegraph

Surprise! It turns out they're Christians!
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
I'd bet all the veg on my allotment, if I had one, that the kid wasn't the tiniest bit traumatised or scarred - at least initially. He's likely to have just been curious, and turned to his parents for an explanation. I can attest, personally, to the fact that the kind of pandemonium they've apparently unleashed in response to his curiosity, will reduce the likelihood of his making that mistake again.

Also, I realise it's beside the point, but all school uniforms, in all co-ed schools everywhere, should just be shorts in summer, trousers in winter, for everyone, end of. Then there's no whingeing about how girls can choose, but boys can't, blah, blah, no uproar from concerned community members about the shortness of skirts, no opportunity for boys to complain that the girls skirts are dragging their minds away from their study, no room for the girls themselves to rebel by unpicking a few stitches from the kick-split each night until you can see all the way to glory... -shorts for everyone. Everyone looks equally horrible in shorts, especially school uniform shorts.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
This story has me really confused.

The parents are claiming they try to live by "biblical" values and that is their justification to objecting about a 6 year-old boy sometimes wearing a dress to school.

So how do they feel that traditional clergy wear skirts (cassocks) and that Our Lord wore what could be described as a dress.

OK, so that's just me being facetious - or is it?

Beyond all this case-by-case nonsense there is a serious issue: could it be that the relentless "girlification" of female children has something to do with the number of girls reporting they feel they are really boys? (And perhaps vice versa?)

When I was growing up many girls had short hair, played rough-and-tumble games and so wore trousers for a fair amount of time. I had one cousin who refused to answer to anything but Jonathan or Jonny for over 2 years, refused to wear dresses (once tore and bit her way out of one!) and who spent most of her time dressed in a cowboy outfit; nobody suggested she was abnormal or "gender confused" and she gradually grew up to accept being female, getting married, having children, etc, etc, etc. Now, little girls all have long hair, wear skirts or dresses and are thus hampered if they want to, say, use a climbing frame or similar.

Rather than getting excited about children being "transgender" or not, might not our time be better spent looking at why we insist (correctly) that life should - as far as possible - be gender neutral yet accept girl children being treated as living, breathing Disney princesses.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
I have a distant family member who seems to spend half his time on the internet looking for stories about transgender or gender neutral (or boys wearing skirts or girls being offered toys that are not pink) purely in order to post about how outraged he is by it all. He has no known religious affiliation - in fact is probably quite militantly atheist. I'm really not getting why this stuff gets to some people so badly. Why do people care so much about what gender people they've never met and never will meet are or permit their kids to be?? Genuine question.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
This story has me really confused.

The parents are claiming they try to live by "biblical" values and that is their justification to objecting about a 6 year-old boy sometimes wearing a dress to school.

So how do they feel that traditional clergy wear skirts (cassocks) and that Our Lord wore what could be described as a dress.

OK, so that's just me being facetious - or is it?
No - in fact, someone has already agreed with you!

NewsThump story
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
Trousers. skirts. Who gives a fuck? Does the traumatised child know for a fact that it is a boy or girl? 6 years old can be androgynous.

Or has he actually done some mutual genitals investigation with the said child? Or just asked?

We, of course, need to know. NOT. None of our fucking business, or anyone else's.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
That's different; cassocks are dresses *for men*.

You've heard of gender agreement in other languages. Most of them do it on pronouns and/or adjectives, but English has *irregular nouns* which also exhibit this property.

For example:

[Toy for girl] = Doll / [Toy for boy] = Action figure.

And here are a few pictures of
men in skirts.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I'll just take it as a given that this did not happen in Scotland.

My oldest showed up at the house for a visit yesterday wearing a kilt. He told me it was so his mom would not ask him to do any gardening that involved bending over.

I'm going kilt shopping today.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I'd bet all the veg on my allotment, if I had one, that the kid wasn't the tiniest bit traumatised or scarred - at least initially. He's likely to have just been curious, and turned to his parents for an explanation. I can attest, personally, to the fact that the kind of pandemonium they've apparently unleashed in response to his curiosity, will reduce the likelihood of his making that mistake again.
My first thought was also to doubt that it even happened, but on reflection thinking of young children I know in similar situations, I can believe that this child might have made a fuss - but I struggle to believe it would be any more serious than a six-year old who got upset about someone else's eraser, who was jealous about the football on someone else's bag or who didn't like being told off because he made fun of the woolly fringe around the hood of someone else's coat.

The only difference between this alleged incident and these other examples is that the parents immediately decided that this was an example of anti-Christian political correct pro-trans schooling-gone-mad and escalated it to a ridiculous level.

quote:
Also, I realise it's beside the point, but all school uniforms, in all co-ed schools everywhere, should just be shorts in summer, trousers in winter, for everyone, end of. Then there's no whingeing about how girls can choose, but boys can't, blah, blah, no uproar from concerned community members about the shortness of skirts, no opportunity for boys to complain that the girls skirts are dragging their minds away from their study, no room for the girls themselves to rebel by unpicking a few stitches from the kick-split each night until you can see all the way to glory... -shorts for everyone. Everyone looks equally horrible in shorts, especially school uniform shorts.
I think there is a general elephant-in-the-room problem in the UK regarding uniform. Almost no schools have a more relaxed policy, and almost everyone in the state pre-16 system seems to think that being ultra-strict about uniform standards has an impact on the discipline in the school (even to the extent of excluding pupils wearing the wrong type of grey trousers the other day).

This gets to bonkers levels when parents are supposed to pay £lots for very low quality clothing that is a stupid colour and which almost nobody enjoys wearing.

I've heard the general logic is to identify and distinguish students from particular schools and to prevent bullying about expensive trainers of children from poorer backgrounds. But that argument doesn't seem to me to hold any water, given it is fairly obvious to everyone who is living in a home where clothing is not regularly washed or where parents are not able to afford bigger/smaller blazers.

Quite why everyone continues with this insanity when there are nearby examples of whole countries that seem to manage perfectly well without mandatory dress codes for students, I have no idea.

--

But I wouldn't support your idea here. There may indeed be good reasons to cover legs (for example embarrassment about eczema) and tight shorts or trousers which show off the genitals are not necessarily the best idea in a school setting. The problem is not really about trousers vs shorts vs skirts as much as the way that these things are worn and the things that the school management deem necessary to enforce.

There may indeed be cause to be concerned about the over-sexual clothing that a particular child chooses to wear, but I'm doubting that anyone anywhere has ever been sexually attracted by the wrong-colour-grey trousers.

The simplest solution it seems to me is to have a uniform that applies to everyone, if a uniform is absolutely necessary at all. And if one has to - which I'm not even sure junior schools have the powers to insist upon anyway - then the items of clothing on the list should be able to be worn by anyone.

[ 11. September 2017, 11:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Trousers. skirts. Who gives a fuck? Does the traumatised child know for a fact that it is a boy or girl? 6 years old can be androgynous.

Or has he actually done some mutual genitals investigation with the said child? Or just asked?

We, of course, need to know. NOT. None of our fucking business, or anyone else's.
To be fair, I really don't believe there is anything to lay at the door of any of the six-year olds in this story.

Partly because these are power games being played by adults via their children, partly because I don't really believe that six year olds are really so self-aware to be making judgements about gender-norms and largely because they're six years old and are quite capable of making a huge fuss about something one day and then being totally fine with it the next.

[ 11. September 2017, 11:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'll just take it as a given that this did not happen in Scotland.

My oldest showed up at the house for a visit yesterday wearing a kilt. He told me it was so his mom would not ask him to do any gardening that involved bending over.

I'm going kilt shopping today.
Oddly enough, my (admittedly brief and unscientific) survey of school uniforms in Scotland suggests that it is the girls who are expected to wear checked tartan-ish dresses and the boys who are expected to wear black or grey trousers.

It'd be interesting if we could find a school where a clan kilt was an acceptable part of the uniform for any of the students at any state school, I'm guessing it isn't.

But your comment also reminded me of a school I once visited (in England) which had an uber-strict uniform code, but where boys and girls were sitting in the classroom in military fatigues.

It appears that the army cadet force (of which some of the students were members and mysteriously were allowed to wear the uniform during lessons) was rather more gender-neutral than the school.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
This story has me really confused.

The parents are claiming they try to live by "biblical" values and that is their justification to objecting about a 6 year-old boy sometimes wearing a dress to school.

So how do they feel that traditional clergy wear skirts (cassocks) and that Our Lord wore what could be described as a dress.

OK, so that's just me being facetious - or is it?
No - in fact, someone has already agreed with you!

NewsThump story
Damn right. Mustn't have Biblical principles clashing with religious ones.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The obvious solution is for the school to provide the uniform of an orange boilersuit for each pupil. Hard wearing and practical!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I have a distant family member who seems to spend half his time on the internet looking for stories about transgender or gender neutral (or boys wearing skirts or girls being offered toys that are not pink) purely in order to post about how outraged he is by it all. He has no known religious affiliation - in fact is probably quite militantly atheist. I'm really not getting why this stuff gets to some people so badly. Why do people care so much about what gender people they've never met and never will meet are or permit their kids to be?? Genuine question.
It's a good question. I worked in gender studies for a long time, and there are various answers, depending on your background assumptions.

Many feminists would argue that gender historically was enmeshed in patriarchal society, hence homophobia and misogyny went together. So gender traits came to seem eternal and absolute, and it is a big shock for some people to see change.

Also, you can cite the effects of religious persecution, again homophobia and misogyny come to mind. I suppose you could say that evangelicals tend to be the worst offenders here.

Maybe also there is a psychological need for stability in relation to sex/gender; in other words, we get disturbed if things change too much.

Now I am running out of breath, but there are other frameworks. Enough for now.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The BBC news website now has the story too.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
This story reminded me of a private school in London, run by someone fairly eccentric, just after the Second World War, who insisted on what we would now call a gender neutral uniform. He wanted to treat all the children the same, so he made sure they all had the same uniform, which involved rust coloured knickerbockers and yellow sweaters. I looked it up - it still exists and is called Hill House School. Apparently Prince Charles went there!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think this couple have done it before, with another trans kid. Why do people like this think the world revolves around them? This is narcissism with a nasty edge, be like us, or we will bully you.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
This story reminded me of a private school in London, run by someone fairly eccentric, just after the Second World War, who insisted on what we would now call a gender neutral uniform. He wanted to treat all the children the same, so he made sure they all had the same uniform, which involved rust coloured knickerbockers and yellow sweaters. I looked it up - it still exists and is called Hill House School. Apparently Prince Charles went there!
I remember sitting on the 94 bus as it trundled alongside Hyde Park and feeling sorry for the kids from this school who were having to run about in the drizzle.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The obvious solution is for the school to provide the uniform of an orange boilersuit for each pupil. Hard wearing and practical!
Well, didn't all workers in Mao's China wear much the same clothing: not only genderless but supposedly classless.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Share our Faith....Bitch about gender...Show ignorance of basic medical facts...

Ye Gods......
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I'm really not getting why this stuff gets to some people so badly. Why do people care so much about what gender people they've never met and never will meet are or permit their kids to be??
Yes, I can't see what the problem is either ... as has been stated, it may well be because change troubles their (possibly frail) sense of security.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The threshold for lawsuits is appallingly low in most places. Can we include a legal system in the hell call which makes it far to easy to do crap like this? You think or feel something, make a list of your "facts", take it to a court register person who stamps it with some official looking stamp, pay the fee (here $35, about £20) and then hand it to whomever you want to sue. It makes good news, outrage and for discussions on internet forums.

None of which touches the real question, which Uncle Pete helpfully asked.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The obvious solution is for the school to provide the uniform of an orange boilersuit for each pupil. Hard wearing and practical!
Well, didn't all workers in Mao's China wear much the same clothing: not only genderless but supposedly classless.
Yes. How we dress expresses our class and our aspirations of class.

My kids have suffered thirteen years of jumpers, shoes, ties, blazers and skirts of various lengths and shades, forced on them by people who purport to believe that a uniform helps them learn. Yet at their respective universities, where they are supposedly becoming experts in their chosen fields, they can wear whatever the hell they want, and somehow, magically, a uniform is superfluous.

I've had jobs where I've had to wear a jacket and tie, and yet the most technically demanding and cerebral work I've done has been mostly sitting in exactly this seat, in my dressing gown. A boilersuit (adult size, £20 or so) is as uniform as you can get, and because even the most bog-standard of comps attempts to emulate private schools, parents have to shell out hundreds or risk their kids getting turned away at the gates or put in isolation.

It's all bollocks really.

[ 11. September 2017, 15:32: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I just love <sarcasm> the way adults involve children in their petty, bigoted tactics.

Use the child as a pawn, and the result just may be not to teach a so-called "faith" stance, but to teach how to manipulate and/or stir up trouble generally.

Lovely lessons <again, sarcasm>.

sabine
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I can't see what the problem is either ... as has been stated, it may well be because change troubles their (possibly frail) sense of security.
The case is being pushed by the Christian Legal Centre/Christian Concern.

Those with ears to hear know what this means.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
no uproar from concerned community members about the shortness of skirts, no opportunity for boys to complain that the girls skirts are dragging their minds away from their study, no room for the girls themselves to rebel by unpicking a few stitches from the kick-split each night until you can see all the way to glory...
The problem isn't the skirt, but the way society sexualises women.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I can't see what the problem is either ... as has been stated, it may well be because change troubles their (possibly frail) sense of security.
The case is being pushed by the Christian Legal Centre/Christian Concern.

Those with ears to hear know what this means.
It means they're going to lose, thank God. The CLC must have literally the worst, stupidest lawyers in the country.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Doc Tor:
quote:
A boilersuit (adult size, £20 or so) is as uniform as you can get...
Here we go. Problem solved. This company says it can provide personalised one(sie)s too, so the schools can even have their logos printed on them.

Has the added advantage of making hoodies uncool.

<doublechecks website> I see it's an American company... but I'm sure there is a British firm that can provide them too.

[ 11. September 2017, 15:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because even the most bog-standard of comps attempts to emulate private schools, parents have to shell out hundreds or risk their kids getting turned away at the gates or put in isolation.

It's all bollocks really.
Or asserting power.

My wife - a former primary-school teacher - said that politicians who believed that all schoolkids should wear uniform should be forced to do up the ties for 30 5-year-olds after their PE class.

[ 11. September 2017, 15:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I wonder why boy to girl seems to cause a lot of anxiety, but girl to boy doesn't. Apparently, in the radio interview this couple were asked if they were worried about girls wearing trousers, and apparently not.

One traditional reply has been that masculinity is fragile, and any divergence is treated with horror, whereas tomboys have been OK for a long time.

I don't know.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It means they're going to lose, thank God. The CLC must have literally the worst, stupidest lawyers in the country.
The point is never about winning/losing cases. I'm sure they don't really give a monkeys if they win this case.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder why boy to girl seems to cause a lot of anxiety, but girl to boy doesn't. Apparently, in the radio interview this couple were asked if they were worried about girls wearing trousers, and apparently not.
That wouldn't have been true in the 50s/60s, when a lot of evangelical Christians became quite apoplectic about "girls wearing male attire" - especially jeans.

[ 11. September 2017, 15:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder why boy to girl seems to cause a lot of anxiety, but girl to boy doesn't. Apparently, in the radio interview this couple were asked if they were worried about girls wearing trousers, and apparently not.
That wouldn't have been true in the 50s/60s, when a lot of evangelical Christians became quite apoplectic about "girls wearing male attire" - especially jeans.
Yes, good point, and I think women are still required to wear skirts/dresses in some kinds of employment. And notoriously, high heels.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
It's a status thing, with a side order of misogyny. Trans man: obviously the poor dear is suffering from penis envy and attempting to emulate Real Men. Does not affect the Real Men because they only date girls and 'girls masquerading as boys' are of no interest to them. Trans woman: traitor to her 'real' sex, and what if a Real Man dates her by mistake? The horror!

[ 11. September 2017, 16:02: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
It's a status thing, with a side order of misogyny. Trans man: obviously the poor dear is suffering from penis envy and attempting to emulate Real Men. Does not affect the Real Men because they only date girls and 'girls masquerading as boys' are of no interest to them. Trans woman: traitor to her 'real' sex, and what if a Real Man dates her by mistake? The horror!
Yes, although I remember that Rachael Padman, one of the early trans women (some time in the 1970s), apart from being involved in a controversy over a Cambridge women's only college, where some people objected to her being a Fellow (hello, Germaine Greer), anyway, Rachael said that before her op, various men were keen on her. And also after her op.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That reminds me that Germaine made an interesting contribution to gender discussions, by saying that real women have hairy smelly vaginas, and trans women don't. No, correct that, women have big hairy smelly vaginas.

I suppose schools working under Biblical principles, might have to check for this.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I am sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of trans women out there who are happily finding True Love. I know several. I'm just speculating about the 'thought' processes of the bigots...

Germaine Greer does not speak for all women. She does not even speak for all feminists.

[ 11. September 2017, 16:17: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I am sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of trans women out there who are happily finding True Love. I know several. I'm just speculating about the 'thought' processes of the bigots...

Germaine Greer does not speak for all women. She does not even speak for all feminists.
Definitely not. She has been labelled a terf for this, but I guess she is now keeping quiet about it, as the uproar was unpleasant.

The 'trans women are not real women' theme has quite a good half-life, though, see Jenni Murray, and others.

But I find the idea of a 'real woman' very interesting, ditto, a real man. Some kind of essentialism, I guess.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I notice that this egregious couple used the equally egregious phrases 'We as Christians...' and 'biblical values'.

My sympathies lie with the school, doubtless trying its best to be fair to every pupil, and to the children 'traumatised'. They are going to be 'educated' at home, but how will that help them to relate to other Real People in the Real World, including *Shock! Horror!* Girlz, Gayz, and Tranz?

Mind you, they could be completely mercenary in their outlook, and just suing in order to win loadsamoney...

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Here we go. Problem solved. This company says it can provide personalised one(sie)s too, so the schools can even have their logos printed on them.
But these would create a bigger problem when the children go the restroom/bathroom/toilet (whatever you call it wherever you live). The girls would have more complications than the boys -- but what else is new?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's interesting how the parents turn what is basically a private matter, into a public one. If their child is confused, then you can explain things, or reassure it, and so on.

But somehow this has to become another media circus. I just saw a photo of them on the BBC website, so they are front page news, and the case will drag on, there may be appeals and so on. Yay!
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
.... Oh, and don't forget the crowdfunding [Yipee]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose it's good publicity for Christianity. Hollow laughter.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Version of the story in the Telegraph

Surprise! It turns out they're Christians!
I saw a link, and started reading and thought "I bet they are religious". And so it turned out.

And yes, I get annoyed because it is another story that reflect really badly on Christians. It makes me seem like a bigotted stupid arrogant prick.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Of course small children notice this stuff. I have overheard (from small children) in reference to my own children:

- Why is that boy riding a girl's bike?
- Why does that girl have short hair?
- Why is that boy wearing pink?
- Why is that girl riding a boy's bike?
- Why does that boy have long hair?
- Is that a boy or a girl?

And a whole bunch of similar comments that assume that people are divided into those with short hair that wear clothing with sports things on, and those with long hair that wear pink frilly things.

I imagine the small child in question might have correctly identified the gender of the child about 50% of the time. It's got short hair and is wearing a pink fleece. I'm confused.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Doc Tor wrote

quote:
My kids have suffered thirteen years of jumpers, shoes, ties, blazers and skirts of various lengths and shades, forced on them by people who purport to believe that a uniform helps them learn. Yet at their respective universities, where they are supposedly becoming experts in their chosen fields, they can wear whatever the hell they want, and somehow, magically, a uniform is superfluous.
I support school uniform - our kids' is boring and cheap, which is kind of the point - and I guess it's a symbol of conformity amongst an age group who are probably all having great difficulty coming to terms with personal autonomy, independence, individuality, discipline etc. Trying to protect kids from their own pride is quite a tricky thing.

Whereas when I lectured and someone might give me attitude, I might smile and say 'if you don't want to listen, I don't care - I get paid anyway and I don't mind if you fail'. Or even 'You're wasting your time and I advise you to withdraw'. Or 'talk again and either you or I are leaving the room - I really don't mind which'.

But these events were really, really rare - kids are more sensible, in the main, by 18. University is a really different case from school.

(Actually, thinking about it, these days my response might have to be 'you and I both know the university is going to give you a degree whatever you do, because it wants your fees and does not want its stats to look bad. Imagine the twats who already have that piece of paper, and the contempt with which employers already view the possessors of it. Don't you want to be able to show some knowledge at interview?')
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
If there is any trauma to the children involved I would put the blame on the parents and their attitude.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The BBC news website now has the story too.
And the dad isn't wearing a tie - outrageous.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I just had a chat with the complaining parents and we were able to come up with suitable school attire.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And the dad isn't wearing a tie - outrageous.
And the mother's hair is way too long and provocatively styled to boot! Has she no sense of modesty? [Devil]

[ 11. September 2017, 17:58: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
One of my closest friends is transgendered. She completely identifies as a woman, although for medical reasons she has not had external sex assignment. The 8-1/2 year old grandson of other friends with whom we went to dinner blinked twice when he met her, but by the end of the meal they were best buds. His Grandad said that my friend made grandson's day. So again I say, who the fuck cares?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, that's what I would expect in a sympathetic and warm environment. Why would your kid get upset and confused, if you don't? On the other hand, if you do, for good Biblical reasons, of course, he or she probably will.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know how anyone else bring up their children, but I've always taught mine that people are different - that some people look and smell and talk differently to the way we do at home.

Since the days we volunteered at a soup kitchen when my child wasn't much older than six, we've made it clear that we don't walk away from people who are different but try to understand and listen to them.

The idea that "Christian values" are things that we fight to impose legally on other people who do things differently is an anathema to me. And, moreover, needs to be resisted even if it ends up losing friends.

Even if one really believes that wearing a skirt is somehow dangerous for a little boy*, it simply isn't loving to go onto national radio to explain that this boy's choice - which is quite possibly about experimentation and struggling to understand himself - is a sign of societal breakdown. That's not love, it is hatred.

It is hatred of a six year old who has done nothing wrong other than accidentally cut across societal norms that a white middle-class Christian family happens to - relatively accidentally - believe in.

I just hope he is protected from outcomes that might somehow make him think he is to blame for a child suddenly going missing from his class.

* I don't know the circumstances so I'm just using "he" out of ignorance. It might well be that "she" or some other term might be more appropriate - but I don't think that really changes what I'm saying here.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I hope, being a Biblical Christian, the mother wears her hat when she prays? What with it being a sign of her husband's authority over her and all. According to Saint Paul.

Even if she is one of the beret or headscarf brigade, I'm inclined to think it's Her Ladyship that wears the trousers in that household. Any interview I've seen so far, Mama Bear has been the most articulate about her doctrines, feelings, the unhappiness of her child, the wrongness of the other family, her rights to express her opinions based on religious belief (said with a knowing smirk) etc. While Dad pigeon-holes himself nicely as dum-dum fundamentalist with his 'a girl is a girl and a boy is a boy' approach. Mum is the one with all the twisty-turny, 'I'm just playing you at your own sinful liberal agenda' shit.

I wonder, too, how supportive of other people's religious beliefs she'd be if she had a little girl sent home from school for not wearing a headscarf, because all the Muslim mums didn't want their kid to witness this confusing and bad example?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:


I wonder, too, how supportive of other people's religious beliefs she'd be if she had a little girl sent home from school for not wearing a headscarf, because all the Muslim mums didn't want their kid to witness this confusing and bad example?
None at all - because this kind of Evangelical seems to lack self-awareness that their argument might be applied to others in ways that they'd not approve of.

And obviously this would be an example of creeping sharia blah blah bloody blah.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Point of order: little Muslim girls (I've taught several) don't wear headscarves.

When they go through puberty, they (nominally) get to choose whether they do or not.

(eta, don't tend to wear headscarves. I'm sure there are some outliers. But none of Muslim girls I've taught ever did, until after they'd left Primary, and then some of them still didn't.)

[ 11. September 2017, 18:51: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Point of order: little Muslim girls (I've taught several) don't wear headscarves.

When they go through puberty, they (nominally) get to choose whether they do or not.

(eta, don't tend to wear headscarves. I'm sure there are some outliers. But none of Muslim girls I've taught ever did, until after they'd left Primary, and then some of them still didn't.)
That's also what I'd understood, however it seems that it depends.

from the Church Times:

quote:
He spoke after a survey of 800 primary-school websites by The Sunday Times found that one fifth, including C of E schools, listed the hijab as part of the uniform. In Birmingham, 46 per cent of 72 primary schools surveyed included the hijab in their written online uniform policy, as did 36 per cent of those surveyed in Luton and 34 per cent of those surveyed in Tower Hamlets.
It is possible that the survey is biased, but I suspect there might well be some pressure from within some Muslim communities for girls to wear headscarfs early.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I see a lot of primary aged girls wearing hijabs in London, in mixed communities where some girls do and others don't.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I bet their minister actually doesn't wear a dress/cassock/surplice etc. etc. when expounding his Biblical Values. I reckon he wears a suit, a sombre tie, and waves a floppy Bible around whilst fulminating.

Sorry, preaching.

IJ
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'm reasonably certain the kids' Primary did have a hijab on the official uniform guidelines, too. Just that none of the pupils wore it.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
My youngest child's school definitely includes at least a few very small humans wearing hijabs. I think my Kindergartener's school had at least one too. (Kindergartener's school does not have very many Muslims probably based on demography.)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I have adult friends who dress up as superheroes.

I figure that what folk wear is none of my damn business. Clearly, more people need to be like me.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I bet their minister actually doesn't wear a dress/cassock/surplice etc. etc. when expounding his Biblical Values. I reckon he wears a suit, a sombre tie, and waves a floppy Bible around whilst fulminating.

Sorry, preaching.

IJ
Or he wears jeans, a scruffy shirt, no tie and dances around the stage, sorry platform, waving a floppy Bible.
Prejudiced? Moi?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I pictured someone rather more staid, but the Floppy Bible, yes, definitely.

[Devil]

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I have adult friends who dress up as superheroes.

I figure that what folk wear is none of my damn business. Clearly, more people need to be like me.
I've been trying (fairly unsuccessfully) to put myself into the mindset of these parents.

I suppose the root of the issue for them is that the child in question is trying to be something that they can't. So it would be like (according to them) a child coming to school looking like a chainsaw.

And I suppose the difference between me and them is not simply that adults have no damn right to tell schoolchildren how to dress. As I've said, I think there are clothing choices which are inappropriate for school-aged children and I can also believe that a child dressed as a superhero or a princess or a pair of swimming trunks or a chainsaw might not be in the best frame of mind for ordinary classroom learning.

The difference between me and them is about the danger of some child turning up at school wearing the "wrong" item of uniform. I can see that there might be an issue if someone turned up wearing only a school sock (which reminds me of when my child first went to nursery and repeatedly tried to take all clothing off - and was remarkably good at it so staff would turn around for a moment and then turn back and they'd be a naked small person with all the clothing on the floor..) but I can't see that wearing a uniform-policy-conforming skirt is the same as wearing a football kit, a superhero suit or whatever.

There might be good reasons why limits might be placed on certain children but not others regarding clothing (I was thinking that it probably wouldn't be a great idea in most situations for a non-Sikh child to wear a turban, for example) but I still can't see how that can possibly apply to a skirt.

So I conclude that whilst there might be reasons for a school giving directions about clothing, there are unlikely to be anything relating to the wearing of a skirt - whether it turns out that the child is trans or not.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can also believe that a child dressed as a superhero or a princess or a pair of swimming trunks or a chainsaw might not be in the best frame of mind for ordinary classroom learning.
I can't speak for lovers of superheros, bathing costumes, or chainsaws, but I do have a small child who is fond of dressing up in princess costumes. She climbs trees in princess costumes, goes down slides in princess costumes, and sits down at the table and works in princess costumes. I can't say that I've seen any difference in her frame of mind - she gets on with whatever she wants to do regardless of her clothing.

I wore a traditional uniform at school. I was glad of the uniform at the time, because I didn't want to feel judged on what I wore, and the uniform sidestepped all of that. (By the time I was a student at university, I had acquired enough confidence not to care about people's opinions on what I wore.) I also appreciated the aesthetic of rows of children all dressed the same.

I don't ever remember thinking that I was in a better frame of mind because of it.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]The difference between me and them is about the danger of some child turning up at school wearing the "wrong" item of uniform. I can see that there might be an issue if someone turned up wearing only a school sock
That depends on the climate, and on where the sock is worn.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re difficulty accepting change:

I think these parents handled their and/or their son's discomfort/fears in a stupid way--twice!
[Eek!]

I also think a lot of people have a lot of trouble accepting and coping with change. And when the easy accepters simply say "You're wrong/ evil/ stupid/ backwards/ not fit to be around", and don't acknowledge that many people (not just hateful ones) will have a problem with this change, they keep people from dealing with their thoughts/feelings, and push them towards resentment, and even hate.

And, for many people, gender is part of the foundation of life. Male, female, period. If someone takes a jack-hammer to that, they take a jack-hammer to the foundational people's life and understanding of reality. No wonder even the non-hateful ones fight it.

Think of some change in the world that drives you crazy, that you think is a mistake or even evil. Or think of a time when someone made some sort of important change, without consulting you.

That approach to changing society is more apt to create enemies than supporters.

I don't have kids, so I'm not in the middle of this. But I'm surprised at the comments here that everyone, obvs, understands transgender, and would have no trouble seeing kids dress as another gender.

If I had kids, I think I could give them reasonable explanations, encourage them to treat trans kids the same as everyone else, invite them over to dinner. But, given my background that I've explained at other times on other threads, I would also need to work on getting past an initial, visceral, interior reaction that something was off-key. (I've had to do this with other things. Lots of work, over a long time.)

I've been thinking about this for a while, and not just in the context of these silly parents. ISTM that, when feasible, it's more productive to listen to people and present them with other perspectives. Like the African-American guy who's helped 200+ Klansmen to quit. He's got their robes in his closet.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It means they're going to lose, thank God. The CLC must have literally the worst, stupidest lawyers in the country.
The point is never about winning/losing cases. I'm sure they don't really give a monkeys if they win this case.
I think it's fairly clearly about losing. They're a pressure group who get donations by persuading people that Christians are discriminated against. If they started winning cases, that would prove that we aren't, at least not on a systemic level, inasmuch as it would show the law is actually on our side.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I can't speak for lovers of superheros, bathing costumes, or chainsaws, but I do have a small child who is fond of dressing up in princess costumes. She climbs trees in princess costumes, goes down slides in princess costumes, and sits down at the table and works in princess costumes. I can't say that I've seen any difference in her frame of mind - she gets on with whatever she wants to do regardless of her clothing.
Mmm. I think the argument is that these things are (often) tribal so having children wearing football kit or costumes may well cause upset or distraction - as much for other children as for themselves - and there may well be levels of discomfort felt by children of parents who can't afford the latest thing.

quote:
I wore a traditional uniform at school. I was glad of the uniform at the time, because I didn't want to feel judged on what I wore, and the uniform sidestepped all of that. (By the time I was a student at university, I had acquired enough confidence not to care about people's opinions on what I wore.) I also appreciated the aesthetic of rows of children all dressed the same.
I also wore a very strict uniform for the majority of my schooling. To be absolutely honest, I rarely thought about it until I reached 17 and then wished I'd chosen to continue my education at a different establishment, so it was a relief to go to university where blazers and itchy shirts were not daily expected wear.

But I do think times have changed and that having a child brings a whole new perspective on things. As parents, the whole uniform thing became a huge battle - we tried to conform, but found it incredibly hard to do so, particularly in later years trying to purchase uniform-conforming shoes. As a student, my child grew increasingly resentful of the petty-mindedness of the enforcement of the uniform policy and grew to develop a mantra that anything-is-better-than-this.

My child learned something about the discipline of educational work and learned that they could achieve more than they initially thought possible if they were single-minded. But I'm not really sure that the main factor in that self-awareness was the school discipline at the (various) schools attended, and latterly the whole package of uniform and pointless rules and cultural expectations seemed designed to suck out all of my child's individuality.

quote:
I don't ever remember thinking that I was in a better frame of mind because of it.
I think at best a uniform takes away a distraction to learning because everyone looks the same. But then these are kids - they're going to be distracted whatever they're wearing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:


I also think a lot of people have a lot of trouble accepting and coping with change. And when the easy accepters simply say "You're wrong/ evil/ stupid/ backwards/ not fit to be around", and don't acknowledge that many people (not just hateful ones) will have a problem with this change, they keep people from dealing with their thoughts/feelings, and push them towards resentment, and even hate.

And, for many people, gender is part of the foundation of life. Male, female, period. If someone takes a jack-hammer to that, they take a jack-hammer to the foundational people's life and understanding of reality. No wonder even the non-hateful ones fight it.
Yes, I accept change is difficult. And I accept that there may be some people who sincerely believe that somehow political correctness is encouraging six-year-olds to experiment with cross-dressing.

I can even believe that there might be some parents who think that they need to withdraw their child from a school because of the uniform policy. I don't like it, but that's their right in a free society.

But what I won't accept is that this somehow gives them a pass or makes the accusations leveled on national radio loving, nor that the only course of action available to them is to seek legal redress.

One can sincerely believe that some school policy is wrong without immediately reaching for legal writs.

quote:
Think of some change in the world that drives you crazy, that you think is a mistake or even evil. Or think of a time when someone made some sort of important change, without consulting you.

That approach to changing society is more apt to create enemies than supporters.

I don't have kids, so I'm not in the middle of this. But I'm surprised at the comments here that everyone, obvs, understands transgender, and would have no trouble seeing kids dress as another gender.
Well I have been a supportive parent who takes notice of what is happening with their child's schooling. As far as I'm aware this has never happened in any class my child attended (which perhaps indicates that if it was an issue, the school managed to keep it confidential).

But for reasons already explained, I don't believe that I would ever have taken the actions that these parents did when faced with a six year old in a skirt. It might have been a problem at 13, given my child attended a single-sex school at that age. Even if I had been enraged at the idea of the "wrong" student being allowed into the school at that age, I can't imagine any parent I've ever known thinking that they'd escalate it to everyone-hates-bible-believing-Christians-you-bastards comments in national press together with a threat of legal action.

I'm sure there are reasonable people who dislike other children's appearance and choices and so on and so on. But most of us live with the reality that other people are different and get on with it.

It takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that one has a unique right to not-be-offended by other people's clothing and that the law should protect you rather than the minority you are offended by.

quote:
If I had kids, I think I could give them reasonable explanations, encourage them to treat trans kids the same as everyone else, invite them over to dinner. But, given my background that I've explained at other times on other threads, I would also need to work on getting past an initial, visceral, interior reaction that something was off-key. (I've had to do this with other things. Lots of work, over a long time.)
That's fair. I'm sure many of us take a while to deal with our initial reactions when faced with someone who looks, smells or thinks differently. But again, surely that's what we want to teach our children - that we shouldn't make a whole song-and-dance based on our initial reactions.

quote:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and not just in the context of these silly parents. ISTM that, when feasible, it's more productive to listen to people and present them with other perspectives. Like the African-American guy who's helped 200+ Klansmen to quit. He's got their robes in his closet.

FWIW, YMMV.
This isn't entirely related, but this weeks episode of This American Life gave a thoughtful angle on a difficult issue. It's about a programme where a group of black students were recruited and placed in white majority schools with the deliberate intention to challenge racist attitudes.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

FWIW: I did say, at the very beginning, that the parents handled this stupidly. I'll try to respond to the rest of your post in a few days.

Thanks for the heads-up about TAL. I missed it over the weekend. Sounds like a dangerous situation for the mentioned kids.
[Paranoid]

BTW, this is the guy I mentioned:

"How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes" (NPR; audio, transcript, and highlights article).
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, I pictured someone rather more staid, but the Floppy Bible, yes, definitely.

[Devil]

IJ
Having looked around I'm guessing that there is no pastor, that the church doesn't believe in them [Biased] [Biased]
But yes to the suits and ties?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Outwith the years of optimal fertility, Nature doesn't give a gnat's fart about signalling sexual differentiation. Basic kit, requisite hormones and pheromones, species perpetuated, job done.

It amuses (as in occasionally appals) me to see how the social construct of gender is stamped on the infant and child. And to notice the effects of that lifelong impress as the old revert once more to asexuality.

The physical being and the cultural template seem to me such distinct phenomena that I cannot feel surprised or disturbed by discrepancies between the two. But it appears to be the case that to many people they both appear equally 'natural' - and therefore a mismatch arouses the visceral level of aversion at something 'wrong' probably programmed into us somewhere along the evolutionary path.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It means they're going to lose, thank God. The CLC must have literally the worst, stupidest lawyers in the country.
The point is never about winning/losing cases. I'm sure they don't really give a monkeys if they win this case.
I think it's fairly clearly about losing. They're a pressure group who get donations by persuading people that Christians are discriminated against. If they started winning cases, that would prove that we aren't, at least not on a systemic level, inasmuch as it would show the law is actually on our side.
Surely if they win a case, it proves that Christians are being discriminated against?!

I don't think they ever have. Mainly because, "We're Christians so we should automatically be excused from all the usual rules, regulations and laws" isn't an argument that courts accept.


Tubbs
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
So we're all agreed: another potential own-goal for the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern - prop Mrs Andrea Minchiello-Williams, lay member of General Synod for the Diocese of Chichester.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So we're all agreed: another potential own-goal for the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern - prop Mrs Andrea Minchiello-Williams, lay member of General Synod for the Diocese of Chichester.
Why do you think it is an own goal? I think it is a part of a very effective campaign of virtue signalling to other conservatives, nothing to do with winning court cases.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
This is an interesting point, that Christians take up these apparently unwinnnable cases. Is it to demonstrate that Christians are persecuted, for the publicity, or to make a genuine point, for example, that trans gender is forbidden by the Bible? Or all of them, maybe.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is an interesting point, that Christians take up these apparently unwinnnable cases. Is it to demonstrate that Christians are persecuted, for the publicity, or to make a genuine point, for example, that trans gender is forbidden by the Bible? Or all of them, maybe.
I think it is about building a particular narrative amongst Conservative Christians in general and Conservative Evangelicals in particular - which runs that secular society is against all-things-Christian and that ungodly actions are in the ascendancy.

The strange thing that I can't really understand is that Conservative Evangelicals are often against anything that smacks of the social gospel and more-or-less believe that the only thing that matters is the state of the eternal soul; and that any social activities can be justified if they lead to the good stuff (ie evangelism and teaching in the truth).

But if that's the case, why are they so obsessed with making a point about the ungodly society? Why does it matter if the society is moving away from Christian values?

Also, if they believe that God is omnipotent, why does it matter if they, individually, do things like this to stand up for biblical truth?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I can't help feeling that there are indeed some 'Christians' who actually want to be persecuted (or to seem to be persecuted), so as to prove to themselves that they are right, and everyone else wrong.

BTW, @Mark Wuntoo - the Floppy Bible is, of course, the One-And-Only-True-Word-Of-God, the King James Authorised Version...

IJ
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

BTW, @Mark Wuntoo - the Floppy Bible is, of course, the One-And-Only-True-Word-Of-God, the King James Authorised Version...

IJ
You are right if it's the church I suspect.
It might just be the NIV if I'm wrong.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Often RSV ime.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is an interesting point, that Christians take up these apparently unwinnnable cases. Is it to demonstrate that Christians are persecuted, for the publicity, or to make a genuine point, for example, that trans gender is forbidden by the Bible? Or all of them, maybe.
High profile cases get publicity. Sympathetic reporting adds to the narrative that Christians are persecuted for doing every day, Christian stuff like praying or wearing a crucifix. This helps with fund-raising.

It also helps is that people get bored with news stories so when verdict comes in - and they lose - there's less noise.

I always feel sorry for the poor saps who get involved with them. A good lawyer should, IMO, tell a client whether or not they have a reasonable case. Looking at some of the employment cases, it’s been obvious from the first story they were likely to lose.

Tubbs
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Or he wears jeans, a scruffy shirt, no tie and dances around the stage, sorry platform, waving a floppy Bible.
Prejudiced? Moi?
Floppy Bible?!? How dare you sir! Our Bibles are big, hard, firm... uh, what were we talking about again...?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
High profile cases get publicity. Sympathetic reporting adds to the narrative that Christians are persecuted for doing every day, Christian stuff like praying or wearing a crucifix. This helps with fund-raising.
I don't think this is really about fund-raising. Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre have very small budgets and the lawyers work pro bono.

It's not a project to make or raise money, it's simply a crusade. An effort to get the message out.

quote:
It also helps is that people get bored with news stories so when verdict comes in - and they lose - there's less noise.

I always feel sorry for the poor saps who get involved with them. A good lawyer should, IMO, tell a client whether or not they have a reasonable case. Looking at some of the employment cases, it’s been obvious from the first story they were likely to lose.

Tubbs
I'd be very surprised if any of the clients ever were given the impression that they had a chance of winning.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The physical being and the cultural template seem to me such distinct phenomena that I cannot feel surprised or disturbed by discrepancies between the two. But it appears to be the case that to many people they both appear equally 'natural'
They are equally natural - cultural templates are just as much a product of evolution as physical appearance. Males and females (as well as all the other cultural and societal groupings) have had separate roles and expectations within society since before our species even existed. It's not like someone just made them up out of whole cloth one wet Wednesday afternoon in 6000BC.

For that matter, many other species have cultures that can be every bit as complex as our own. Apes and monkeys, of course, but also mole rats, meerkats, dolphins, ants, termites - any species that lives in large groups. Their societies work because each member of the herd/clan/flock/nest/etc. knows both what their role is and what everyone else's role is. Individuals who don't fit in or try to move themselves into other roles are very often not treated very well at all.

We may be far more advanced than even the smartest apes, but we are still animals and we still have millions of years of evolution screaming at us from our hindbrains whenever we see something "wrong" that might threaten the integrity and smooth functioning of our herd. It's going to take a lot longer than a decade or two to reverse that.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The physical being and the cultural template seem to me such distinct phenomena that I cannot feel surprised or disturbed by discrepancies between the two. But it appears to be the case that to many people they both appear equally 'natural'
They are equally natural - cultural templates are just as much a product of evolution as physical appearance.
Parts of culture stem from nature. Skirts and highheels, not so much.


quote:
It's not like someone just made them up out of whole cloth one wet Wednesday afternoon in 6000BC.
Thought it was more like 4000BC and took about a week...

quote:

It's going to take a lot longer than a decade or two to reverse that.
It is less reversing and more like sorting out the nonsense first. And then stripping out the unnecessary.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A good lawyer [...]
Hi there!

quote:
[...]should, IMO, tell a client whether or not they have a reasonable case.
Yes. Exactly right.

I had a client a while back (not a Christian) who was threatened with legal action for refusing service to a gay couple for religious reasons. I advised what the law was (don't do that) and I advised him what I could potentially say in his defence to distinguish his religious reasons for refusing service from those given in other decided cases, what the likely costs and damages might be, and what his other options were.

I'd have fought the case on his behalf if he'd decided he wanted to take the chance (personal views on the subject notwithstanding) and would have argued every point that I properly could, because that's my job as an advocate, but he wisely decided that a swift apology and token payment was the better option.

I don't say that it's absolutely impossible to advise potential clients honestly and in their own best interests AND at the same time to be on the look-out for willing martyrs who will run losing cases for a cause you are personally invested in, but it's certainly not a professional position I'd be comfortable with.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I do hope these poor put-upon faithful do not move to Scotland, or encounter Prince Charles (who, I understand, occasionally sports a kilt in his official, or perhaps unofficial, capacity). My grandfather Duncan, born in Thornleybank, Scotland, no doubt lies churning in his grave.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Often RSV ime.
I'm not sure anybody over here still uses the RSV. Maybe the United Methodists.

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I always feel sorry for the poor saps who get involved with them. A good lawyer should, IMO, tell a client whether or not they have a reasonable case. Looking at some of the employment cases, it’s been obvious from the first story they were likely to lose.
Don't feel bad. The lawyers are also religious saps who want publicity more than cases won. Over here we have societies (of whatever tax status) with lawyers on call who can willingly go and fight these quixotic battles.

Whether one thinks they are "good" lawyers is a matter of opinion, of course.
 
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
There are other posts about the mother's appearance here, but I note that she is wearing jeans in the photos I have seen. Surely she should wear a dress or skirt if she follows her logic through?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
There are other posts about the mother's appearance here, but I note that she is wearing jeans in the photos I have seen. Surely she should wear a dress or skirt if she follows her logic through?
Clearly her marriage is falling apart, and she's advertising.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Maybe the real reason the boy was upset was because he wanted to wear a dress too. [Devil]

Huia
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
There are other posts about the mother's appearance here, but I note that she is wearing jeans in the photos I have seen. Surely she should wear a dress or skirt if she follows her logic through?
In the photos I've seen she is wearing a short skirt that leaves little to the imagination. Doesn't she know the Scripture about not causing your brother to offend? [Biased] [Razz]

Fortunately it seems that the media frenzy has died down for the moment which is a good thing for the other family involved.
I would like to think that the couple who are protesting are ashamed at what they have done but I doubt it.

[ 13. September 2017, 07:24: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Maybe the real reason the boy was upset was because he wanted to wear a dress too. [Devil]

Huia
I wouldn't be surprised. Many's the time I've strolled through Marks', envious of the clothing choices women have. Men's clothes are so dull, and...

... and I'm saying this in public, aren't I? [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
No need to be embarrassed, Adeodatus: you were just born too late. Things were different in the earlier Elizabethan age... though actually, quite a lot of the women's clothes in M&S are dull too. Acres and acres of black trousers and white shirts for work...

[ 13. September 2017, 09:43: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Marvin--

Thanks for your great post that starts:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They are equally natural - cultural templates are just as much a product of evolution as physical appearance. Males and females (as well as all the other cultural and societal groupings) have had separate roles and expectations within society since before our species even existed. It's not like someone just made them up out of whole cloth one wet Wednesday afternoon in 6000BC.
I think people have "difference alarms"--stronger in some people than others. And we (and probably most living things) are wired to sort things we encounter into categories: e.g., eat, run from, mate with, kill, build with, other.

So, IMHO, when people are scared by differences, or put people into categories, it's what they're wired for. And they may not realize it. Or they may think that their perspectives are simply the way things are--and, among the people and situations they know, that may be true.

Maybe there's a way to acknowledge that and work with it? Both for those people, and others who think they're wrong.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Point of order: little Muslim girls (I've taught several) don't wear headscarves.

When they go through puberty, they (nominally) get to choose whether they do or not.

(eta, don't tend to wear headscarves. I'm sure there are some outliers. But none of Muslim girls I've taught ever did, until after they'd left Primary, and then some of them still didn't.)
Certainly. The point I was making was that the parents in question are probably not interested in extending freedom of religious expression to anyone outside of their own circle, even while they attempt to utilise the principle for their own publicity purposes.

It was a while ago now, of course, and it was with reference to secondary schools; but I do remember very clearly rows and rows of smartly uniformed and headscarved young Muslim girls in most of the classrooms of the schools our theological college used for its schools modules. Sparkbrook, Handsworth, Lozells area. Black, and after that Asian, students were apparently the greater in number. And indeed there was, at least at that time, a very large presence of Black Pentacostal/Evangelical churches in those areas, too. Also, many Sikh and some Hindu temples; again, evidenced in the classroom with the young male students dressing their hair and heads according to their faith tradition.

As I remember it (hopefully accurately!), the school had a basically CofE ethos - or else had a head-teacher and many staff who were CofE connected; and Christian worship and assemblies were taken in these schools as a matter of course. And also a wide-ranging programme on religious education, as you can imagine!

It was a great place to experience certain aspects of multi-culturalism in Britain!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Maybe the real reason the boy was upset was because he wanted to wear a dress too. [Devil]

Huia
I wouldn't be surprised. Many's the time I've strolled through Marks', envious of the clothing choices women have. Men's clothes are so dull, and...

... and I'm saying this in public, aren't I? [Hot and Hormonal]
Hey, I'm as straight as a Roman Road but totally agree.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
High profile cases get publicity. Sympathetic reporting adds to the narrative that Christians are persecuted for doing every day, Christian stuff like praying or wearing a crucifix. This helps with fund-raising.
I don't think this is really about fund-raising. Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre have very small budgets and the lawyers work pro bono.

It's not a project to make or raise money, it's simply a crusade. An effort to get the message out.

quote:
It also helps is that people get bored with news stories so when verdict comes in - and they lose - there's less noise.

I always feel sorry for the poor saps who get involved with them. A good lawyer should, IMO, tell a client whether or not they have a reasonable case. Looking at some of the employment cases, it’s been obvious from the first story they were likely to lose.

Tubbs
I'd be very surprised if any of the clients ever were given the impression that they had a chance of winning.
The large “Donate” button on every page of the website must be a coincidence then. Every page.

You’re right, this is a crusade. If they win a case, it proves that Christians’ are being persecuted. If they don’t, it’s because the law is unfair and discriminatory. They totally have an agenda.

But I think you're wrong about the potential impression they give clients.

All the accounts of cases suggest that the client is completely blameless. Just innocently going about their Christian business. Inconvenient facts are glossed over. Such as the claimant ignoring requests to stop the behaviour after complaints from other staff / clients.

Everything suggests that the cases have a reasonable chance of success. (Just donate so they can fight on!)

I don’t believe they say anything different to clients. Even when it's glaringly obvious there is little chance of success.

For example:

Nurse sacked for occasionally offering to pray with patients was asked to stop after eight patients complained and didn't. One cancer sufferer claimed she told him he’d have a better chance of survival if he prayed.

Christian suspended for giving a Christian book to a Muslim college was disciplined for misusing her authority over a junior member of her staff and ignored warnings about the negative impact her spiritual life was having on her work.

Tubbs

(Fixed URL. Goddammit Tubbs...)

[ 13. September 2017, 11:58: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Thank you. [Hot and Hormonal]

Tubbs
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The large “Donate” button on every page of the website must be a coincidence then. Every page.
I don't think this disproves what I've said: namely that the funds they raise are relatively small, their costs are limited and they're not a wealthy organisation with palatal offices. The purpose of taking on cases is not to raise funds - and they make limited efforts to raise money.

quote:
You’re right, this is a crusade. If they win a case, it proves that Christians’ are being persecuted. If they don’t, it’s because the law is unfair and discriminatory. They totally have an agenda.
Right, but as I was making the case above, the agenda is not about anything other than signalling to a particular constituency.

Winning or losing is less relevant that being seen in the national media standing up for biblical values.

quote:
But I think you're wrong about the potential impression they give clients.

All the accounts of cases suggest that the client is completely blameless. Just innocently going about their Christian business. Inconvenient facts are glossed over. Such as the claimant ignoring requests to stop the behaviour after complaints from other staff / clients.

Everything suggests that the cases have a reasonable chance of success. (Just donate so they can fight on!)

I don’t believe they say anything different to clients. Even when it's glaringly obvious there is little chance of success.

OK, well that's not the impression I get. But you're going to have to read between the lines to get to what I think because I'm not prepared to spell it out here.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Maybe the real reason the boy was upset was because he wanted to wear a dress too. [Devil]

Huia
I wouldn't be surprised. Many's the time I've strolled through Marks', envious of the clothing choices women have. Men's clothes are so dull, and...

... and I'm saying this in public, aren't I? [Hot and Hormonal]
Hey, I'm as straight as a Roman Road but totally agree.
Blimey, what are you two like. The two biggest complaints I hear from women are a) high heels and b) inadequate pockets. If I had to dress like that I'd start thinking that Valerie Solanas was onto something.

And I speak as a man who begins wedding rehearsals with the line - you're a modern woman and I am an Anglo-Catholic clergyman so I can say with confidence that I have more experience of wearing a long white dress than you do.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Half a million quid a year. Make of that what you will.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Half a million quid a year. Make of that what you will.
Interesting definition of small ... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Half a million quid a year. Make of that what you will.
Interesting definition of small ... [Big Grin]
That's quite impressive. They see more money than my Grade 1 listed church does which has had the roof fixed at the governments expense and added an extension in the last couple of years and by several orders of magnitude to the PTA, whose accounts I am currently trying to sort out. I bet they are not in the same league as, say, the RSPCA or the British Legion, but half a million is a tidy sum of money for bringing frivolous lawsuits against the government.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Often RSV ime.
I'm not sure anybody over here still uses the RSV. Maybe the United Methodists.
Spotted last week in the pews of our Lutheran congregation.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's the stupidity of such people that amazes me. The father said that trans kids weren't bullied or rejected, which of course, is what he is doing. They said that other parents should be consulted - why? They said that boys wearing skirts is not Biblical - really? So kilts are from Satan?

Why is there so much stupidity in the world? Has Satan poisoned them?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Logical, joined-up thinking is not to be expected from 'we-as-Christians' types, IME.

IJ
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They said that boys wearing skirts is not Biblical - really?
Jesus always seems to wear a skirt as here
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They said that boys wearing skirts is not Biblical - really?
Jesus always seems to wear a skirt as here
(this link auto-plays god-awful Christian music from the off - my ears are bleeding, so yours don't have to - DT HH)
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Holy Crap. That is really, really bad. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From that bl**dy link:

'The friendliest little place on the
web for Christian Music, Worship CD's and Instrumentals. We make it easy to enjoy our Praise Music, just Click and Listen!'

DO NOT DO IT!

You. Have. Been. Warned.

IJ
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's the stupidity of such people that amazes me. The father said that trans kids weren't bullied or rejected, which of course, is what he is doing. They said that other parents should be consulted - why? They said that boys wearing skirts is not Biblical - really? So kilts are from Satan?

Why is there so much stupidity in the world? Has Satan poisoned them?
My father always said to be wary of men wearing skirts - they played the bagpipes. Hard to disagree with that.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Holy Crap. That is really, really bad. [Projectile]
Really sorry - I had my computer on mute and didn't realise!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Often RSV ime.
I'm not sure anybody over here still uses the RSV. Maybe the United Methodists.
Spotted last week in the pews of our Lutheran congregation.
Go to.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This isn't entirely related, but this weeks episode of This American Life gave a thoughtful angle on a difficult issue. It's about a programme where a group of black students were recruited and placed in white majority schools with the deliberate intention to challenge racist attitudes.
Another one that deals with some similar issues is "550: Three Miles".

quote:
There’s a program that brings together kids from two schools. One school is public and in the country’s poorest congressional district. The other is private and costs $43,000/year. They are three miles apart. The hope is that kids connect, but some of the public school kids just can’t get over the divide. We hear what happens when you get to see the other side and it looks a lot better.
It's been a couple of years since I heard it. But IIRC some of it is wrenching. The African-American kids had a rough time. But it's a really good episode.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Often RSV ime.
I'm not sure anybody over here still uses the RSV. Maybe the United Methodists.
Spotted last week in the pews of our Lutheran congregation.
Go to.
Er...? (Not quite sure what you meant there...)

In any case, I was not quite correct - they use the New Revised Standard Version.

[ 18. September 2017, 15:01: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Obviously there are no Muslim boys at the school as they can wear BOTH concurrently!!!!
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and I was a teenager, we regularly cross- dressed in school for things like Spirit Week -- the male athletes would come to school in drag, somewhere between Mismatched Sock Day and School Colors Day. I'm sure that kind of thing could never happen now without some triggered Christians losing their minds.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
...or possibly fluidly gendered people who might see it as cultural appropriation.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0