One Little Step
There was just a little story in the Washington Post this morning, just a little step but this is what a trip of a thousand miles is made of.
Two things there. First, you treat somebody as the gender they say they are. Overall, this is the only approach that can work with someone whose gender identity is unusual or unobvious: treat them as the person they present themselves as. The second thing is to "treat them respectfully." --These are two aspects of the same thing.
Most of the time somebody's dealing with the police, it's not for funsies, there's something going on. It's no time for humor or making a point, you have real people with some kind of problem, and laws to enforce. Maybe you have a transgender victim, maybe a transgender perp or witness, doesn't matter, you treat them like you treat everybody else.
This is a good step in the right direction, it seems to me.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier issued an order yesterday that covers the way her officers will deal with transgender people. The order "sets the highest standards in the nation," according to the DC Trans Coalition, made up of members of the city's transgender community.
Police are to refer to transgender people by the gender they have "expressed or presented" and treat them respectfully, the order says.
When arresting a transgender person, officers should write "AT RISK" on the arrest form to indicate that transgender arrestees should be placed in a separate cell Chief Sets Policy for How Officers Should Deal With Transgender People
Two things there. First, you treat somebody as the gender they say they are. Overall, this is the only approach that can work with someone whose gender identity is unusual or unobvious: treat them as the person they present themselves as. The second thing is to "treat them respectfully." --These are two aspects of the same thing.
Most of the time somebody's dealing with the police, it's not for funsies, there's something going on. It's no time for humor or making a point, you have real people with some kind of problem, and laws to enforce. Maybe you have a transgender victim, maybe a transgender perp or witness, doesn't matter, you treat them like you treat everybody else.
This is a good step in the right direction, it seems to me.
posted by JimK at 9:30 AM
45 Comments:
A U.S. House vote is just around the corner on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — a bill that gives homosexuals special rights in the workplace. ENDA would add "sexual orientation" to a list of federally protected classes that includes race and religion.
“My race is being compromised, in that gays are saying that they need protected status just like someone who’s of a race that they can’t change," said Bishop Harry Jackson, president of the High Impact Leadership Coalition.
“This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, this is a moral values issue, and it’s an issue of the integrity of the civil rights movement.”
ENDA has an exemption for religious institutions, but Maureen Wiebe, spokeswoman for the American Association of Christian Schools, said it’s too narrow.
“It would not seem that Christian schools would fall under the exemption for ENDA," she said. "So ENDA could seriously affect the hiring rights of a Christian school.”
The House committee will take up ENDA on Wednesday. The bill would add special protections for "sexual orientation," but not "gender identity" — or transgendered individuals. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, has promised to add protection for "gender identity," as soon as she believes the votes are there.
Which is it, Jimbo?
Is it like this?:
"When arresting a transgender person, officers should write "AT RISK" on the arrest form to indicate that transgender arrestees should be placed in a separate cell"
or this?:
"you treat them like you treat everybody else."
A Michigan student Wednesday won a high school talent show by singing a Christian rap song that the school had banned a day earlier.
James Whipper, 16, auditioned and qualified for the Monroe High School talent show by singing “He’s Calling.” But Assistant Principal Montyne Barbee decided at the dress rehearsal that Whipper needed to change to a nonreligious song or drop out.
Barbee remained firm on her decision until she learned that the Liberty Counsel legal staff, contacted by Whipper’s mother, was sending a letter to the principal advising that, “When the school conducts talent shows or other events where students choose their own material, the school cannot censor out religious speech.”
School officials allowed Whipper to perform his song, and he received first place in the contest.
“I was so proud of him that he stood up for what he believed,” his mom, Kenyetta Whipper, told the Monroe Evening News. “We are rejoicing. He put faith into action.”
Do cops put African Americans in cells with skinheads and Klansmen or do they keep them separate to try to keep the peace? How about pro-X and anti-X demonstrators, do they separate them to keep the peace? Everybody deserves this protection.
ENDA is about ending discrimination and ensuring equal and fair treatment for all Americans. LGBT people deserve to be free from discrimination just like everybody else.
More power to the kid who won the talent show. When a trans kid wants to perform in a talent show at school, let's hope somebody stands up for that kid's rights too. It won't be Liberty Counsel, that's for sure.
Here's an AP story from yesterday with elements sure to leave TTF distinctly displeased:
"CHICAGO (Oct. 15) -- Julio and Mauricio Cabrera... are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay.....
If fresh evidence is found suggesting genes are involved, perhaps homosexuality will be viewed as no different than other genetic traits like height and hair color, said Julio....
The federally funded study, led by Chicago-area researchers, will rely on blood or saliva samples to help scientists search for genetic clues to the origins of homosexuality....
initial results aren't expected until next year — and won't provide a final answer....
Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn't prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation."
Really, I thought TTF assured us that only biological factors are involved. Oh well, I guess they "mispoke." Turns out child-rearing, religion and belief systems are still in play as possible influences.
"Research involving identical twins, often used to study genetics since they share the same DNA, has had mixed results."
Really? TTF cites those studies all the time.
"One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance."
How about that? A peer-reviewed study promoting the gay agenda- and no one can replicate it.
I'm getting suspicious!
"Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn't one so-called "gay gene."
It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist."
Ut oh, TTF. The lead researcher in this federally funded study thinks it's likely that homosexuality is not innate.
Should we send this to the MCPS Board before they start lying to the kids?
Not only does he believe it's likely that gaiety is not innate, he also believes psychological and social factors are probably involved.
I thought TTF said that everyone "just knows" that gay feelings are innate.
This guy must have been sick at the last gay agenda briefing.
"Still, he said, "If there's one gene that makes a sizable contribution, we have a pretty good chance" of finding it."
He said "if".
"Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.
However, he added, "If we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination."..."
Egad! Now we have the head of this gay medical association using "innate" and "immutable" interchangeably- just like the Maryland court. Jim must be apoplectic! Think a red face and steam bursting out the ears.
He also said "if" twice!
"His new research is an attempt to duplicate and expand on a study published in 1993 involving 40 pairs of gay brothers. That hotly debated study, wrongly touted as locating "the gay gene," found that gay brothers shared genetic markers in a region on the X chromosome, which men inherit from their mothers.
That implies that any genes influencing sexual orientation lie somewhere in that region.
Previous attempts to duplicate those results failed."
Omigosh! Another peer-reviewed study, regularly cited by TTF, advancing the gay agenda- and again, no one can replicate the results. This is starting to sound like a set-up!
I think Congress should investigate this pattern of unreplicable test results pushing a political agenda.
"But Sanders said that with so many participants, his study has a better chance of finding the same markers and perhaps others on different chromosomes.
If these markers appear in gay brothers but not their straight brothers or parents, that would suggest a link to sexual orientation. The study is designed to find genetic markers, not to explain any genetic role in behavior."
He said "if". He also used "behavior" and orientation interchangably.
This is getting to be TTF's worst nightmare coming true!
"And Sanders said even if he finds no evidence, that won't mean genetics play no role; it may simply mean that individual genes have a smaller effect."
And, of course, TTF will continue to say they "just know" what they "just know".
Scientific evidence isn't necessary for teaching- just the backing of the establishment status quo.
"Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it's possible for gays to "convert" — changing their sexual orientation without harm.
Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results."
Why do you think he says that? Just because they keep coming up with results that no one can duplicate doesn't mean they have an agenda.
I mean, maybe someone broke into the lab after hours and tampered with the results.
"Sanders disputed that criticism.
"We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove," he said. "We are trying to pry some of nature's secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait."
Jones acknowledged that he's not a neutral observer. His study involved 98 gays "seeking help" from Exodus International, a Christian group that believes homosexuals can become straight through prayer and counseling. Exodus International funded Jones' study.
The group's president, Alan Chambers, said he is a former homosexual who went straight and believes homosexuality is morally wrong.
Even if research ultimately shows that genetics play a bigger role, it "will never be something that forces people to behave in a certain way," Chambers said. "We all have the freedom to choose."
The Cabrera brothers ....had cousins who were gay, ... Julio said having an older brother who was gay made it easier for him to accept his sexuality.""
On other words, familial social influence may affect the choice to be gay.
Well, to conclude, it appears the scientists keep saying "if" and MCPS is telling students "is".
The liberal wackos have no shame!
Anonymous, you seem to think that TTF has some vested interest in seeing scientific results come out one way or the other. I have said here many times, I don't expect any "gay gene" will be found, any more than genes for any other psychological trait.
Please don't drag us down into your partisan sewer by pretending we have said things we haven't. The casual reader here, unfamiliar with our position or your rhetorical style, might not recognize that you are lying.
Further, MCPS makes no comment on any genetic basis for sexual orientation.
JimK
I thought TTF assured us that only biological factors are involved.
More fiction by Anon. I've been reading here a long time and TTF never said "only biological factors are involved." I suggest you try reading the curriculum TTF supports.
It states "What causes sexual orientation? Almost certainly there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors."
"At Risk" is to be used when the trans person requests that designation or it's obvious to the police that there is potential for mischief. It's not an automatic designation.
"Anonymous, you seem to think that TTF has some vested interest in seeing scientific results come out one way or the other. I have said here many times, I don't expect any "gay gene" will be found, any more than genes for any other psychological trait."
I also didn't say or imply that you said a gay gene is involved but you and other TTF have said repeatedly that homosexuality is innate, that prenatal factors while perhaps not genetic are biological and that research demonstrates clearly that social, moral and religious factors aren't an influence.
"Please don't drag us down into your partisan sewer by pretending we have said things we haven't. The casual reader here, unfamiliar with our position or your rhetorical style, might not recognize that you are lying."
That's because I'm not lying. You not only have expressed a partisan view about how you want the research to come out, you have supported teaching this unproven point of view to students as fact.
"Further, MCPS makes no comment on any genetic basis for sexual orientation"
I didn't say they did. I said they are planning to teach that sexual preference is innate. You have supported this by saying that is also what the scientific establishment thinks and yet we now a leading scientist saying it is not so.
""At Risk" is to be used when the trans person requests that designation or it's obvious to the police that there is potential for mischief. It's not an automatic designation."
I agree with the designation, Dr. Indeed, the government needs to be responsible for the safety of anyone it has in custody. My only point was Jim's use of the trite phrase "be treated like everyone else" is trite.
People are different.
"More fiction by Anon. I've been reading here a long time and TTF never said "only biological factors are involved.""
Well, read more closely. They have argued that research shows that social norms and religious values and familial interpersonal relationships are not factors.
"It states "What causes sexual orientation? Almost certainly there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors.""
Nice that the curriculum has this statement. Unfortunately, similarly to the homophobia defintion, they then contradict themselves and say that homosexuality is "innate".
Furthermore, the researcher in this new study says there are "likely" social, moral and religious factors too. Where's that in the MCPS curriculum?
Anon, there is no question about whether sexual orientation is or is not innate. There is no scientific question, and there's really no political question about it, except that some people wish they could argue that gay people choose their orientation, because then they could call it a moral choice. It's a silly point to make, when everybody knows from their immediate experience that they are how they are because ... that's how they are. You can choose to behave differently from how nature made you, but that doesn't mean you don't have an innate trait.
And let me make it clear, it doesn't matter to my/our point of view whether sexual orientation is innate or not. It just so happens that it is, but it doesn't matter. We would advocate showing respect for differences between people even if it wasn't innate. Really. It doesn't matter.
JimK
"there is no question about whether sexual orientation is or is not innate. There is no scientific question,"
This accomplished research psychologist disagrees with you, Jim. He says there are likely social and psychological factors.:
""Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn't one so-called "gay gene."
It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.""
"some people wish they could argue that gay people choose their orientation, because then they could call it a moral choice."
Actually, it's the other way around. Gay activists argue against choice to avoid dicussing the moral question.
"It's a silly point to make, when everybody knows from their immediate experience that they are how they are because ... that's how they are."
Isn't the whole idea of psychology that by studying we can learn how we got to be who we are?
This accomplished research psychologist disagrees with you ...likely social and psychological factors...
Anon, he is not disagreeing with me at all. That's how genes work -- they interact with the environment.
Isn't the whole idea of psychology that by studying we can learn how we got to be who we are?
That would be part of psychology. But it has nothing to do with my comment.
JimK
"This accomplished research psychologist disagrees with you ...likely social and psychological factors...
Anon, he is not disagreeing with me at all. That's how genes work -- they interact with the environment."
He is if you say homosexuality is innate. Unless you were born into a condition where you will inevitably become gay, you can't say homosexuality is innate.
If you won't become gay absent certain psychological and social factors that occur after birth, as this scientist said he believes is the case, it's not innate.
Isn't the whole idea of psychology that by studying we can learn how we got to be who we are?
To take an example, suppose one is born with some characteristic unappealing to females. If social norms opposing homosexuality are not present, he may compensate his lack of succcess with females by developing same sex feelings. Just because the characteristic makes one more likely to develop homsexuality doesn't make it innate.
Andrea- not anon
From the surgeon General's call to action on Public Health , 2001
"Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence, if not earlier (Bell et al, 1981), and there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed (Haldeman, 1994; APA, 2000)."
Now we know that CRC and their lone supporter here- n. Anon- say the Surgeon General is the final authority when they quote the old statement by Koop about anal sex and condoms- and Koop wasn't even the Sg when he said it. Any other Surgeon General statement is not right, the SG is not perfect, etc - because other SGs say things CRC doesn't agree with. Elders, Carmona, Satcher- and of course, as with the APA and AMA - when CRC and N. anon don't agree with them- it is because these people and major medical organizations are "politicized". What a bore- how typical, how illogical and as usual- how pathetic.
And dreary:
We are discussing whether gaeity is innate. Your quote:
"Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence, if not earlier"
doesn't say so directly but would imply that it happens after birth and, thus, is not innate. It indeed fits well with nurture side of the argument and not so comfortably with the nature side.
"and there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed"
We weren't discussing immutability but this statement doesn't say it is immutable. To interpret it that way is an example of the binary thinking that Jim professes to so detest.
Further, you list organizations that you think endorse innateness may not. Anon-B posted this from the APA:
"According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors."
Doesn't sound like an endorsement of innateness to me.
In any case, there is hardly a consensus favoring innateness. The lack of consensus is attested to by the fact that the leading researcher in this new federally funded statement is saying that it is likely that post-birth social and psychological factors determine sexual preference. Prenatal factors are not determinative and, accordingly, innateness is not established.
Sorry, MCPS is teaching a curriculum not supported by the facts.
Unless you were born into a condition where you will inevitably become gay...
No, Anon, unless you speak a different language where "innate" means that, no. Let's say you have freckles, I mean, freckles are innate for you. Now let's imagine you never go out in the sun. You'll never get freckles. Let's say you're an "innate" alcoholic, but you never drink. Genes work by interacting with the environment, even if "the environment" is some protein or physiological stimulus. Phenotypes are conditional on the interaction, that's why even a genetically homogeneous population has a distribution of characteristics.
The CRC has made a big deal out of confusing "innate" with "immutable." Get over it. They aren't the same thing, hardly even overlap.
JimK
...happens after birth and, thus, is not innate...
Anon, you ought to give up. The entire development process is innate. Baldness, for instance, is innate; all the changes that come with aging are innate.
It might be time for you to go away now.
JimK
"The CRC has made a big deal out of confusing "innate" with "immutable." Get over it. They aren't the same thing, hardly even overlap."
Where did I say they were? Innate means present at birth. Immutable means unchangeable.
I've not said they were the same.
"Anon, you ought to give up. The entire development process is innate."
Indeed, and inevitable. Not so with homosexuality. Whether it occurs or not depends on social and psychological factors.
It is not innate. It may be preventable by proper upbringing and moral instruction and social structure.
Anonymous, it's time to take your medicine.
Merle
clever remark, Merle
gee, what didn't I think of saying that?
Ah, Anon, "innate" does NOT mean "present at birth. It means acquired or developed prior to or at birth.
When scientists speak of innate characteristics they are referring to those that develop in utero, or perinatally up to one year after birth, because that first year is a time of immense brain growth and had their been no physical limitations we would probably have evolved a gestational period more like the elephants.
You are incredibly ignorant of basic science, and would be better off spending your time back in school rather than blogging here. Then again, you clearly don't believe in education, so that's a useless suggestion. I apologize.
Well, Doctor, you will agree then that when this scientist refers to social and psychological factors, he is saying that it is likely that homosexuality is not innate, right?
If you say that doctors generally expand the definition of "innate" to a year after birth, I believe you but shouldn't we be teaching teens in laymen's terms? After all, they probably aren't pre-med in high school. If they hear their health teacher say that homosexuality is innate, the smart ones will tend to look it up in the dictionary and get the wrong idea.
Be honest for once in your life and admit that Al Saunders doesn't mean that social and psychological factors that influence homosexual inclination occur in infants less than a year old.
Keep going with that honesty and admit that there are no replicated scientific findings that homosexuality is innate.
You have a chance to be more honest than the MCPS curriculum!
"On October 12, 2007, the same day that former American Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations climate panel were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for work related to global warming, Dr. William Gray, Ph.D., a respected pioneer in the field of meteorology, gave a speech at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte criticizing their work. Addressing a crowd of 300 including meteorology students and professional meteorologists, he stated that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth and complained that "We're brainwashing our children".
Gray explained that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures -related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. That same cycle means a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
Gray, whose own annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicized, also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that, and humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
In 2005, Gray appeared in front of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify on his area of expertise, hurricane prediction. During this testimony, Gray asked:
"How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"
Gray also asserted, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool".
In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of the Denver Post, Gray said "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past."
Go Anon !
I'm here supporting you, but I can't get too involved right now,
Did you hear Hannity the other day. A parent called in, because his kindergartener had been told by the teacher that she couldn't talk about God at recess (she had just been to CCD the week before).
Sad. He advised the parent to put the kid in Catholic schools.
Andrea - I don't have a problem with the eighth grade definition :
It states "What causes sexual orientation? Almost certainly there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors."
I have a problem with the innate statement the BOE voted to add to the eighth grade curriculum and the innate statement already in the opening paragraph of the 10th grade curriculum.
If they had stuck with the APA definition throughout 8th and 10th, and thrown out the bogus Holt resource, and added in the health risks, some of us might be able to meet in middle.
Did you know Germany advised parents to masturbate their three year olds this summer... hey, fathers shouldn't avoid that area when cuddling their children... after all they are going to learn someday, right Andrea ?
Theresa
Anonymous said...
"Keep going with that honesty and admit that there are no replicated scientific findings that homosexuality is innate.
You have a chance to be more honest than the MCPS curriculum!"
___
Agreed. You know what really infuriates me though? The fact that they also don’t admit that there are no replicated scientific findings that left-handedness is innate. Thanks to the pro-left lobby, the MCPS already teaches, encourages, and indoctrinates students to engage in left handed behavior if they have “feelings” to do so.
Personally, I rightly left the left-style some time ago. I currently self identify as an ex-lefty. Don't get me wrong, I'm still tempted with "feelings" and "inclinations" to write left, but as the Bible clearly says in
Hebrews 1:3:
"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."
And especially in Leviticus 14:14:
"The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot."
Public school children need to be taught about this immoral leftstyle, because it’s quite clear that the Bible condemns the left side of the body.
You're so predictable Anon. You take **one** researcher, this time its Dr. William Gray, Ph.D., to try to refute worldwide scientific consensus on man's input into global warming. The Discovery Institute tried to refute worldwide scientific consensus on evolution with a number of "researchers," just like NARTH tries for sexual orientation, but it didn't help. ID is still banned from public schools science classes except that it might be discussed in comparative religions classes, where it belongs.
Anyway keep your head in the sand on the global warming problem evident in stories like:
ATLANTA (Oct. 15) - For the first time in more than 100 years, much of the Southeast has reached the most severe category of drought, climatologists said Monday, creating an emergency so serious that some cities are just months away from running out of water.
In North Carolina, Gov. Michael F. Easley asked residents Monday to stop using water for any purpose"not essential to public health and safety." He warned that he would soon have to declare a state of emergency if voluntary efforts fell short...
But since science and facts seem to be beyond your comprehension especially when they're inconvenient to your message, maybe you'll be able to grasp the political angle.
While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.
...The debate has taken an intriguing twist. Two candidates appealing to religious conservatives, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, call for strong actions to ease the effects of people on the climate, at times casting the effort in spiritual terms just as some evangelical groups have taken up the cause.
Look out! Don't get left behind!
Theresa asked Did you know Germany advised parents to masturbate their three year olds this summer... hey, fathers shouldn't avoid that area when cuddling their children... after all they are going to learn someday, right Andrea ?
Why don't you go ask the CRC's ally, boy-cuddling therapist Richard Cohen. I bet he could tell you all about it. After all, he's a professional; parents pay him to hug the gay away from their sons.
Theresa, welcome back. Could you address all of this please? Because we never got an answer.
___
August 07, 2007 5:11 AM
Emproph said...
Theresa said: "I don't think heterosexuality is fixed, either, as the behavior of men in jail shows."
Prison rape? A penis in an anus is your definition of my desire to love and be loved, EVEN IF--as I already stated--"my partner and I are celibate?"
If the only thing separating you from "being" a lesbian is to be raped by another woman, then I agree with you about orientation, it should not be considered "fixed" by anyone.
I think the problem that you may not be seeing is that most of us, gay or straight, don't reduce our human desire to love and be loved to mere genital contact.
Theresa said: "esp when they are not including anything about the fact that same sex attraction are more prevalent in the teenage years. When you tell them it is "innate" and then don't tell them that attraction can change during early years, you are harming the kids."
Since you consider it a "fact." What sources CAN YOU CITE that show same sex attraction is more prevalent during the teenage years--AS-OPPOSED-TO--being experimentaion due to teenage horniness?
[Oct 17, 2007 - no doubt this CRC tract is the source]
And at that point, what would it matter, since from what I gather, you consider attraction and behavior to be the same thing?
And since you've already established that neither homo nor hetero behavior/orientation is innate, Why would you want to teach kids that their heterosexual attractions might just be a phase, and that they should hold out for the possibility that they may indeed be homosexual?
-Patrick
___
August 07, 2007 7:28 AM
Emproph said...
Theresa said: "So who is teaching proproganda, Emproph ?"
Theresa, I am a first hand eye witness to the "phenomenon" called same sex attraction.
You are using third party assertions (Michael Glatze, Charlene Cothran, Citizenlink, WND, et al) to claim that my eye-witness is invalid.
If this is what you believe, so be it, admit it.
But every "decidedly" LGBTQ person like me, speaks from the heart, not from a third party source with a political agenda to suppress the first hand eye witness account, of me and every other LGBTQ person on the planet.
This is how I determine the difference between propaganda and information that adheres to journalistic standards. One is not only more accurate than the other, but the other (propaganda) was designed to decieve as well.
Which makes this question by Anonymous all the MORE appropriate:
"So you were not born a heterosexual Theresa? Tell us, when did you decide to become one?"
To which you replied: "You are avoiding the question."
In fact it is precisely the question, if, indeed, you would like to speak from a 'factual' basis, in regard to the mutability of gender attraction.
No one other than Michael Glatze and Charlene Cothran are in a position to speak for Micael Glatze and Charlene Cothran.
For you to use them, to speak for me, and every other LGBTQ person on the planet, is to bear false witness. For you to demand that we speak for them, is to demand that we bear false witness against them.
Like me, you are only truly in a position to speak factually from first hand eye-witness experience. Thus the question--as flip as you may perceive it to be--does indeed apply:
"So you were not born a heterosexual Theresa? Tell us, when did you decide to become one?"
-Patrick
In addition, August 07, 2007 7:50 AM:
someone said:
"Teresa, this is a perfect opportunity for you to make your point by telling us about your decision to be heterosexual. Once you start, then others can come forward with their stories. Pretty soon, the gay agenda will be destroyed, as it is revealed that sexual orientation really is a choice.
You start, here's your chance to change history simply by being honest.
Tell us. When did you decide?"
___
Anonymouse changed history just the other day:
"Gay persons are just confused heterosexuals.
Same-gender attraction is a chosen “lifestyle."
___
So don't forget Theresa, you too can change history. Honesty is always an option.
Theresa
Nice to hear from you. Sounds like your very presence unleashed a flood of repressed anger. These guys are apparently still seething over the last time you made them look foolish. That irrational stream of consciousness from Improv just about says it all.
I'll be going out of town for about a week and won't contribute any new comments until then. These guys appear to need a break anyway.
Anon-B
Dr Gray is hardly the only scientist to point out the problems with the common wisdom on global warming. Many have found errors throughout the Nobel prize winner's film.
Your description of the drought conditions in the South is pointless. There is always some kind of remarkable weather conditions going on somewhere. We'll survive.
Remember, not long ago the alarmists were predicting record hurricanes and flooding due to global warming. Seems they can measure current conditions and take a good shot at the next week or so. Beyond that, they haven't got a clue.
More Anon fiction. I find no anger in Emproph's words. Emproph's comment includes patient requests for answers to questions posed months ago that languish unanswered, anaylsis of arguments made, and a request for sources that support claims made. And he was asking Theresa, who I understand reports herself to be more of a Churchill than a Chamberlain so I'm sure she's perfectly capable to answer for herself.
Remember, not long ago the alarmists were predicting record hurricanes and flooding due to global warming.
Hurricanes reaching the US are hardly the sole indicator of global warming. Here are some pertinent information for those who are not gleefully ensconced in a self-imposed state of antisocial denial:
FACT: September 21, 2007
The North Pole Is Melting
The permanent Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record low this week, presaging a future of a summertime Northwest Passage and obscuring fog
'Tis the season in the Arctic when the sun disappears below the horizon and twilight replaces daylight. Temperatures drop and ice that melted throughout the Arctic summer begins to cover the world's northernmost ocean again. Scientists have used satellite pictures since 1979 to map the extent of such ice at its minimum, and the picture this year isn't pretty. Covering 1.59 million square miles (4.12 million square kilometers), this summer's sea ice shattered the previous record for the smallest ice cap of 2.05 million square miles (5.31 million square kilometers) in 2005—a further loss of sea ice area equivalent to the states of California and Texas combined.
"The sea ice cover this year has reached a new record low," says Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "It's not just that we beat the old record, we annihilated it..."The observed rates of change have far outstripped what we projected.""
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=28591A94-E7F2-99DF-31EE65D88983AE31&sc=I100322
CONSEQUENCE:
October 7, 2007 - 2:19am
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Thousands of walrus have appeared on Alaska's northwest coast in what conservationists are calling a dramatic consequence of global warming melting the Arctic sea ice.
Alaska's walrus, especially breeding females, in summer and fall are usually found on the Arctic ice pack. But the lowest summer ice cap on record put sea ice far north of the outer continental shelf, the shallow, life-rich shelf of ocean bottom in the Bering and Chukchi seas.
Walrus feed on clams, snails and other bottom dwellers. Given the choice between an ice platform over water beyond their 630-foot diving range or gathering spots on shore, thousands of walrus picked Alaska's rocky beaches.
"It looks to me like animals are shifting their distribution to find prey," said Tim Ragen, executive director of the federal Marine Mammal Commission. "The big question is whether they will be able to find sufficient prey in areas where they are looking."
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, September sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. Sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return, with a possible ice-free Arctic Ocean by summer 2030, senior scientist Mark Serreze said.
Starting in July, several thousand walrus abandoned the ice pack for gathering spots known as haulouts between Barrow and Cape Lisburne, a remote, 300-mile stretch of Alaska coastline.
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=220&sid=1262680
And guess what. The link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean temperatures has been confirmed.
September 12, 2007
Ancient Shells Harden Link Between Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
A new method for analyzing fossilized shells confirms link between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and warmer oceans
Domatoceras, a precursor of the squid with a hard shell, thrived 443 million years ago during the early Silurian period. More than 100 million years later during the Carboniferous period, Pentamerus, a clamlike, two-shelled invertebrate, clustered on ocean floors. Both stored rare isotopes of carbon and oxygen in their calcium carbonate shells that then fossilized. By examining the percentage of such bonded rare isotopes, scientists have now confirmed the link between carbon dioxide levels and warmer ancient climates.
Certain isotopes of carbon and oxygen have extra neutrons, specifically 13C and 18O, which find each other more easily at cooler temperatures. Because scientists know the favorable bonding conditions, the number of such pairings in ancient shells provides a thermometer for different periods.
Geochemists Rosemarie Came and John Eiler of the California Institute of Technology and their colleagues counted these couplings in fossilized shells from the Silurian and Carboniferous eras and discovered, contrary to earlier findings, that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations of the Silurian were indeed linked to higher ocean temperatures.
"Attempts to quantitatively reconstruct surface temperatures at this time suggested that the two periods were similar to one another in mean global temperature," Eiler says. "Our results demonstrate that the Silurian tropical oceans were far warmer than the Carboniferous, consistent with common expectations regarding the importance of greenhouse gases for global climate."
Most previous reconstructions relied on Nobel prize winner Harold Urey's measurement of relative concentrations of 18O in calcium carbonate and seawater depending on temperature. But that method is based upon the original concentration of 18O in the oceans, which is extremely difficult to accurately reconstruct from the fossil record.
Eiler argues that the new measurements are more accurate because they do not rely on such seawater data. The team plans to refine the new method, which they describe in Nature, and use it to assess temperatures during other periods, such as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum that occurred approximately 55 million years ago when there was a sudden shift from a relatively cool to an extremely hot climate as well as temperatures that prevailed during Earth's periodic mass extinctions.
The finding adds yet more weight to the contention that greenhouse gases drive climate change, and bode ill for the present increases in atmospheric concentrations of such gases. "It supports the notion," Eiler says, "that you can use simple radiative balance arguments—that is, the greenhouse effect to relate atmospheric chemistry to global temperature."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=FA93ADEF-E7F2-99DF-3E41A7015992703C&ref=rss
Wrong window Theresa? I didn’t even comment in that thread, were you trying to hide it, or were you just multi tasking?
___
Theresa says: “Emproph - As far as your question you are so insistent on asking - "how long have I known I was hetereosexual since this is the only thing that matters, your personal testimony"...are you suggesting we discard the entire field of psychiatry ? Because I believe if one follows your reasoning thread, that is where it leads....”
Well you can believe whatever you want, but the fact is, that’s a non-sequitur, and therefore irrelevant.
Theresa says: “As far as me personally, I am not answering that question. Anyway I answer it you will twist it. So..."
And that accusation would be an ad hominem. Failing to qualify any personal factual basis for YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that the gender attraction of others is “fluid,” or non-existent, that I consider to be trite, insipid, cowardice. It adds yet another layer of puerile dishonesty to your claims that you’re interested in “factual basis”:
Theresa: "I don't want the schools to teach a religous view of homosexuality, I want them to teach an accurate one."
Let’s take a look at that "non-religious accuracy":
“That would include modifying the current curriculum to include an ex-gay story”
-Teach MCPS students that imaginary sexual orientations are real.
“telling me of the increased percentages HIV in the gay population”
-Teach MCPS students that same-gender attraction, IN AND OF ITSELF, increases one’s propensity to CHOOSE to have unprotected anal sex.
“and the lack of protection of condoms during anal sex”
-Teach MCPS students not to bother using a condom during anal sex because it won’t make any difference.
“telling them that sexual orientation is fluid during adolescent years”
-Teach MCPS students that if they think they are a heterosexual, they shouldn't, and that they should consider that they may be homosexual or bisexual.
“backing up to the dictionary's defintion of tolerance and not their made up one, among other things.”
-Teach MCPS students that hatred is not hateful if you call it religion.
“None of these have anything to do with religon, like you like to claim. They have to do with presenting a objective viewpoint, as opposed to a one-sided one.”
-Objectively balanced = Non-factual secular "arguments" designed by anti-gay religious supremacists.
___
You can call that "twisting" all you like, but at least those dots are connected.
andrea-not anon
theresa- I have never thought too highly of your "contributions" here. Suggesting that I approve of some statement- and I wonder if it is even correct given your record -that German parents should touch their children inappropriately is disgusting and yet something I would expect from CRC. Secondly, if you were at all aware of the actual MCPS curriculum, you would know that health risks of sexual activity are taught in the section on STDs. I understand that knowing what is actually taught is not a strong point for CRC and their cronies- rather, you all read Johnny and Ruth made-up tales of what is in the readily available curriculum. Unlike you, my kids took these classes and I read the textbook. Come back when you candiscuss the facts of the class instead of nonsense you make up as you go along.
"Secondly, if you were at all aware of the actual MCPS curriculum, you would know that health risks of sexual activity are taught in the section on STDs."
Yes, and the STD section has not been updated in parallel with the family life section.
Given that you think 11 years old are okay to give birth control pills to without notifying parents, hey, it is just one more step.... germany, who trys to take children from homeschoolers when they won't send their kids to public schools, also tried to encourage this :
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073105.html
Give it a couple more years, Andrea, I am sure you will be all for it... after all, they are going to learn it anyway, right ?
Jim wouldn't give me an age that he thought was to say "anal sex" around the kids...
So what's the difference, shouldn't you teach children to enjoy that area ? That was Germany thought... That is where you agenda eventually goes. But I am glad to hear that SOMETHING finally digusts you.
Excuse me, Theresa, but who said that "11 years old are okay to give birth control pills to without notifying parents"?
JimK
Well that would be middle school from the school nurse. I think you said this Jim....
On your post on schools offering conception via the school nurse in Maine.
Did you not agree that this was okay ?
middle is 6,7,8 grade. I have a 6th grade boy, he is 11 years old.
so you did.
Didn't you realize that when they say middle school it includes 11 year olds ?
I know how old middle school kids are ... I don't think it's "okay" that 11-year-olds are on birth control, but I really don't think it's okay when 11-year-olds are mothers.
JimK
Typical CRC idiocy, so typical. Middle school kids range in age from about 10 or 11 to 13 or 14. Let's pretend they're all 11.
Have you seen a 13-year-old girl recently?
Merle
This is you isn’t it Theresa?
"Oct 12, 2007, Theresa Rickman , Maryland
given the outrageous determination by the public schools to corrupt children to believe that ANYTHING GOES, sex at any age is just fine, and at age 10 we don't care if you wait until you are married, just wait until you are older, no wonder so many parents are pulling their children out of the public school system. I have kids in the private schools, except for the one year I put them in public school. At age 10, at the "health curriculum" where they were going to tell FIFTH GRADERs to wait until they were OLDER (NOT WAIT until they were married to have sex). I attended the meeting for that sex ed curriculum at North Chevy Chase middle school in MD when my children were enrolled. The parents were shown at that meeting the video they were planning on showing the 10 year olds. It showed the a boy having a wet dream sneaking out of his room in the morning with his dirtied sheets and wandering into his older brother who proceeds to explain the birds and bees... At that meeting we were told that during the class the kids would write down questions and the teacher would read them to the class. I asked if a child asked the question "what is anal sex" would they read that to the class of 10 year olds. The answer was yes. I got up and left, my kids were back in private school within a week. this is just the start of the attack of the public schools in their attempt to destroy religous freedom. WATCH OUT. www.mcpscurriculum.com Theresa Rickman CRC Secretary - the group that is fighting the pro gay advocacy curriculum in montomery county."
___
-Doesn’t even have kids in the public school system.
-Will settle for nothing less than teaching abstinence (ignorance) only “education.”
-Does not want the words “anal sex” uttered in sex ed, EVEN IF the student asks about it.
-Believes that forcing her beliefs onto the children of OTHER parents is a matter of religious freedom.
Indeed, you poor persecuted religious supremacists you.
Well let's try this again.
__
This is you isn’t it Theresa?
#2702 "Oct 12, 2007, Theresa Rickman , Maryland
given the outrageous determination by the public schools to corrupt children to believe that ANYTHING GOES, sex at any age is just fine, and at age 10 we don't care if you wait until you are married, just wait until you are older, no wonder so many parents are pulling their children out of the public school system. I have kids in the private schools, except for the one year I put them in public school. At age 10, at the "health curriculum" where they were going to tell FIFTH GRADERs to wait until they were OLDER (NOT WAIT until they were married to have sex). I attended the meeting for that sex ed curriculum at North Chevy Chase middle school in MD when my children were enrolled. The parents were shown at that meeting the video they were planning on showing the 10 year olds. It showed the a boy having a wet dream sneaking out of his room in the morning with his dirtied sheets and wandering into his older brother who proceeds to explain the birds and bees... At that meeting we were told that during the class the kids would write down questions and the teacher would read them to the class. I asked if a child asked the question "what is anal sex" would they read that to the class of 10 year olds. The answer was yes. I got up and left, my kids were back in private school within a week. this is just the start of the attack of the public schools in their attempt to destroy religous freedom. WATCH OUT. www.mcpscurriculum.com Theresa Rickman CRC Secretary - the group that is fighting the pro gay advocacy curriculum in montomery county."
___
-Doesn’t even have kids in the public school system.
-Will settle for nothing less than teaching abstinence (ignorance) only “education.”
-Does not want the words “anal sex” uttered in sex ed, EVEN IF the student asks about it.
-Believes that forcing her beliefs onto the children of OTHER parents is a matter of religious freedom.
Indeed, you poor persecuted religious supremacists you.
Well now it worked. The first time I posted it it was locked in the "post a comment" section. So I think you can cut that first post (of the double) and this one too if you feel so inclined Jim. (or all three. Heck, ban me for life if it suits your fancy.. ;)
Ah, I see, I wondered what that was, Emproph. When you post a comment, or I post something here, it goes through two stages. First, it goes to the Blogger server, which manages all the blog stuff; from there the text is ftp'ed to our TTF.org server, where it is mixed in with the rest of the web site and becomes visible to the world.
Sometimes Blogger has problems (there is even a word, "Bloggered," that is used to describe things that don't work) and the publishing step doesn't happen.
I get all blog comments in my email, as soon as they go to Blogger, and I don't usually check the blog itself unless something funny is happening.
Anyway, I'll leave these as you posted them, just so nobody thinks we're manipulating the message, and your statement makes it clear what happened.
JimK
Andrea- not anon
Yeah, I believe Lifenet- just like I believe Stormfront or 911truth.com. And yes, that is The Theresa. Her ideas of religious freedom are not those in the Constitution- CRC's idea is that everyone learn their religious views since of course, those are the "right" ones.
Post a Comment
<< Home