Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of course there is. People aren't just born with xx or xy chromosomes. Sometimes they're born with XXY or XYY chromosomes. The intersex make it quite obvious that biology isn't so neat or binary.I don't need a degree to determine what a male or female is. The logic is in the dna code, xx and xy. There's no discussion.
Of course there is. People aren't just born with xx or xy chromosomes. Sometimes they're born with XXY or XYY chromosomes. The intersex make it quite obvious that biology isn't so neat or binary.
It also can result in mix matched or underdeveloped sex organs. You also don't have to have extra chromosomes for this to happen. Olympic runner Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes, outward appearing female sex organs (breasts and vagina) and internal testes. She has always identified as a female. What would you identify her as? A male because of her chromosomes? Well then you're saying males can have vaginas. If you say she's female then you're saying females can have XY chromosomes. As I said, biology isn't so neat.Sure but the extra chromosome in men affects height and cognizance not sex.
They demanded Phil Robertson be fired from Duck Dynasty for saying the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. (It does)
They demanded that liberal women accusing conservative men of sexual misconduct must be believed. (But not conservative women accusing liberal men.)
A rookie fireman bringing treats to his coworkers was fired because he brought cold watermelon and some of his coworkers were black.
A lovable Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben were removed respectively from pancake syrup bottles and boxes of rice and no more Indian maiden on Land o Lakes butter.
They have stricken the name of J.K. Rowling and anything Harry Potter from their websites, social media, and made her ‘she who must not be named’ because she said that ‘woman’ should remain a biological category.
A public school student was sent home because he wore a T-shirt to school that said there are two genders. And he was sent home the second time when he had modified the shirt to say there are censored genders. To the woke that constitutes hate speech.
But anybody who refuses to buy Bud Light these days is a transphobic, racist, hateful bigot who should not be allowed to be part of the human race.
------------so------------
At what point does all this become absurd? How can rational people not see not only the dichotomy but how absolutely ridiculous it is when only one point of view is to be allowed as socially acceptable? Is to be allowed at all? How unreasonable is that? How discriminatory? How un-liberal?
At what point does it become dangerous to our liberties?
If your market is MAGA maggots, you advertise with ignorance, secret organizations, bigotry, all level of hatred ,ugliness, Chauvinism , hate of our country and government, you promote dictatorship and you attack immigrants, gays and logic. That's how you market to the right
It was mostly Egyptian citizens who protested Cleopatra, historically believed to be of Macedonian/Greek heritage, being portrayed as a black woman. The objection was not due to racism but because of historical integrity.Are you saying the the right doesn't try and control things?
What about Cleopatra, that documentary, played by a black woman, the right starts telling us that this is bad, that it has to be played by a white woman.
A "point of view" can mean many things.
My "point of view" could be that I think Rednecks should be unpaid slaves.
The REALITY is the US is a place of human rights. Where "all men are created equal".
Should people therefore be allowed to make people feel like third class citizens in their own country? Should slavery be allowed just so we don't become "woke"?
It was mostly Egyptian citizens who protested Cleopatra, historically believed to be of Macedonian/Greek heritage, being portrayed as a black woman. The objection was not due to racism but because of historical integrity.
In a country where there is equal treatment under the law, there should also be equal treatment culturally. Slavery is illegal for all and has been for 158 years or 8 generations ago. That is plenty of time for slavery to be a non issue.
There should be no protected classes that can't be criticized or insulted. The fact a a group is considered 'protected' sets them apart as different, privileged, not mainstream. It enhances what prejudices exist. To declare them a protected group actually increases the probability of resentment toward them, of criticism of them.
We all should abide by the exact same rules and regulations to respect and protect everybody's rights with equal consideration and protection under the law. Once we do that a whole lot of these kinds of problems will simply disappear.
www.census.gov
I don’t wonder.and you folks wonder why things are unraveling .........~S~
Young children should be allowed to be kids, innocent, carefree, unaware of the 'difficult situations' that older people deal with.Each of the them is about difficult situations. One
I don’t wonder.
I have not heard the term “politically correct” or incorrect, used in that way, it is usually a derogatory term.Yep. It is offensive to Holocaust survivors and that is what makes it politically incorrect. I would intensely criticize/condemn people participating in that and call them out for the hateful, mean spirited activity they engage in,
Likewise with the Westboro Baptist shenanigans that I consider almost always inappropriate and mean spirited.
But it is purely that they are offensive that makes them politically incorrect.
"Equality" under the law means no hindrance to each person using his/her God given intellect, abilities, talents, aptitude, ambition to reach for his/her full potential.Not from what I saw. Facebook was full of white people from the US and UK protesting.
So, if there's "equal treatment" then two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. That's "equal treatment". No "this is our religion, you shouldn't be able to marry because of what I think"
Yes, there should be no protected classes. But in order to achieve this, there has to be equality among races.
There isn't.
Poverty in the United States: 2021
This report presents data on poverty in the United States based on information collected in the 2022 and earlier CPS ASEC.
Poverty rate of 11.6%
White non-Hispanic is at 8.1%
Black at 19.5%
Native America is at 24.3%
Hispanic 17.1%
This is no equal. You might say "well, it's their own fault." I doubt that. For some, it might be the case of a person struggling to get a decent job simply because they're not smart enough, or whatever, but the US has created inner city ghettos, its way of funding education benefits the rich, the attitude in certain places seems to be one of "well, it's their fault, so no point in actually doing anything about it" or "why would we want to pay for their education when they're just going to compete with our kids?"
Until people believe that there's equality, you'll have problems.
Oh and could I suggest that you look beyond Facebook for your information?Not from what I saw. Facebook was full of white people from the US and UK protesting.
So, if there's "equal treatment" then two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. That's "equal treatment". No "this is our religion, you shouldn't be able to marry because of what I think"
Yes, there should be no protected classes. But in order to achieve this, there has to be equality among races.
There isn't.
Poverty in the United States: 2021
This report presents data on poverty in the United States based on information collected in the 2022 and earlier CPS ASEC.
Poverty rate of 11.6%
White non-Hispanic is at 8.1%
Black at 19.5%
Native America is at 24.3%
Hispanic 17.1%
This is no equal. You might say "well, it's their own fault." I doubt that. For some, it might be the case of a person struggling to get a decent job simply because they're not smart enough, or whatever, but the US has created inner city ghettos, its way of funding education benefits the rich, the attitude in certain places seems to be one of "well, it's their fault, so no point in actually doing anything about it" or "why would we want to pay for their education when they're just going to compete with our kids?"
Until people believe that there's equality, you'll have problems.
Look up other definitions that explain it better. There are many on the internet. And as long as cross burning or Nazi marches or whatever is classified as 'speech' by the courts, that has to be included in the definition(s).I have not heard the term “politically correct” or incorrect, used in that way, it is usually a derogatory term.
conforming or adhering to what is regarded as orthodoxliberal opinion on matters of sexuality, race, etc.: usually used disparagingly to connote dogmatism, excessive sensitivity to minority causes, etc
Emphasis mine, there is a BOAT LOAD of irony right there.That is good question. I think what is or is not hate speech depends on who you are and will vary person to person, group to group (yet another reason why banning it is dangerous).
Something can be hateful, rude, intolerant….and free speech allows us to call it out.
With some exceptions, I disagree with book bannings whether it is coming from liberals or conservatives.Young children should be allowed to be kids, innocent, carefree, unaware of the 'difficult situations' that older people deal with.
)
In the definition of political correctness or free speech? I’m sorry Foxie, I’m not seeing it. Politically correct is a specific term relating to the liberal way of being over delicate in not offending.Look up other definitions that explain it better. There are many on the internet. And as long as cross burning or Nazi marches or whatever is classified as 'speech' by the courts, that has to be included in the definition(s).
There is no group that is protected, by law, from insults or criticism.It was mostly Egyptian citizens who protested Cleopatra, historically believed to be of Macedonian/Greek heritage, being portrayed as a black woman. The objection was not due to racism but because of historical integrity.
In a country where there is equal treatment under the law, there should also be equal treatment culturally. Slavery is illegal for all and has been for 158 years or 8 generations ago. That is plenty of time for slavery to be a non issue.
There should be no protected classes that can't be criticized or insulted. The fact a a group is considered 'protected' sets them apart as different, privileged, not mainstream. It enhances what prejudices exist. To declare them a protected group actually increases the probability of resentment toward them, of criticism of them.
We all should abide by the exact same rules and regulations to respect and protect everybody's rights with equal consideration and protection under the law. Once we do that a whole lot of these kinds of problems will simply disappear.
No one should be doing it. But does that mean teaching inclusion and tolerance is bad?If schools were filled to the brim with pamphlets by Jehovah's Witness or books promoting Westboro Baptist, these same idiots would be screaming bloody murder.
It's o.k. when THEY do it, though.
Some good points here. But if the impression is that the book about a new black kid is to insert thinly veiled CRT into the system, yes many conservatives, including this one, will strongly object to that. Again I haven't read the book so I'm going only by the reported perceptions. I don't know a single conservative among all my friends, family, associates, neighbors etc., even those who hold some racist views in my opinion, who would object to the character in the book being black.With some exceptions, I disagree with book bannings whether it is coming from liberals or conservatives.
When leftists got their knickers in a knot over Tom Sawyer etc it was ridiculous. Almost all great literature is written through the lens and bias’ of the period yet and they want to ban them because of derogatory stereotypes. Part of assigning readings in a class is the discussion afterwards where that can be part of the discussion If needed.
On the other side you have the rightists who are banning IDEAS and PEOPLES in the guise of “protecting” children.
Many books are banned because they are written by Black authors or other minority authors, and provide a view point on events or history from that perspective and that might not line up with the dominant narrative. However it is still valid and important for kids to encounter. Not only that it reflects the reality of some of those very kids in the school who have experienced it. And again, promotes discussion and an understanding of other perspectives.
Banning entire peoples. When most of the banned books are either by or about a few specific groups, then you are effectively banning people. Their experiences and their perspectives disappear from both reading and discussion. In doing so, they and their views cease to exist in school and are not acknowledged.
The reasons are, ostensibly, foul language, descriptions or discussion of sex, violent scenes but more often it is just because someone objects to a “lifestyle” or a view that reveals some of the ugly truths about us as a nation.
Among the books I listed was one about “fitting in”….a new kid in school, in a new neighborhood, trying to figure out how to fit in and make friends, which he does and navigate through some difficult situations. A universal theme for children. But, the kid is black, the new school is mostly white, the awkwardness of race enters into it, and therefor it is banned.
In a similar way, “Heather has Two Mommies” and “Tango makes Three” commit the sin of depicting non-traditional families and for that they are banned. No sex. No foul language.
That is not to say there are not good reasons to ban books from school libraries.
The first question is - is it age appropriate?
The second is, if it contains violence, sex or controversial issues, is it done so in a way that adds to and doesn’t negate the literary value? And IS there even a literary value that overrides it?
Other questions:
Does it speak to real life experiences or issues? For example, rape, depression, suicide, incest or pregnancy. These are all things a teen today may well have had to deal with or know someone who has.
Issues surrounding sexuality are complex and daunting during adolescence and banning books that tackle that hardly helps them figure things out or feel less alone.
Like the leftists banning books solely because the depict negative stereotypes, rightists are banning books because the depict non-conservative views and lifestyles. Kids should be protected to the extent that material is age appropriate but older kids, highschool kids, are going to be navigating some of the very issues being banned and imo, it is better to encounter in a reading with subsequent discussion than surfing the internet. They are ALREADY DEALING with this.
On a relevant tangent, how do you feel about those trying to ban books in public libraries? (when I was in school, libraries were my sanctuary and librarians my hero’s
Disclaimer: No, I do not believe Gender Queer is appropriate for a school library.
It all depends on what is being included and what is being tolerated. The predation of children should NEVER be included and tolerated.No one should be doing it. But does that mean teaching inclusion and tolerance is bad?
