Students protest transgender classmate's use of girl's locker room

[juansavage1]

Or Juan, it isn't just leftists, it is you know most everyone. I don't consider myself a leftist, I consider myself in tune with reality. If you want to continue to live under a rock and pretend homosexuality is a choice go right ahead. Oh and even if it was a choice would it really matter? Oh and as soon as our "rightests" can actually get their heads out of their asses on these types of things, the sooner we will all be better off because one of them might actually be electable.

Ah, the "get on board" argument. Love it. 

 

You don't consider yourself a leftist, but this particular idea has its genesis with leftism. 

 

Remember, everything is a tactic and more often a lie. Now that they feel the coast is clear, it's OK to say it's a choice. 

 

We'll see who's more electable, I suppose. If a Republican wins, then will you reconsider your position? If you move to a place where the majority of people condemn homosexuality, will you "get on board?" 

[Tank]

i think juan has a valid point. my brother and i have noticed, as have you, that things that used to objectionable are no longer being treated that way, and there's some good in that. but we've also noticed that some of the more vocal proponents INSIST that we as a society MUST accept nearly anything and everything, and i have an issue with that.

 

for instance, the issue of homosexuality comes to mind (since it was mentioned). i have no issue treating anyone nicely. but i don't believe that homosexuality is okay because the bible condemns it. i don't think i should be forced to accept things that violate my spiritual/religious beliefs. it doesn't make me a hater (i've been called that on this board because i don't accept some things) because i'm not walking around condemning people - that's between each person and God. 

 

i think what makes juan's point have some validity is that the social justice crusaders on the left are more likely to be the ones to insist we all accept whatever they're promoting, and that if we don't, we're racist/misogynist/hateful people. that's simply not true for everyone who disagrees.

[Glen]

I've always said I prefer a gay, Indian-headdress wearing fruit loop in a thong to a Stepford wife with a piping-hot stack of flapjacks. Juan is, as usual, 100% correct.

[Glen]

Ah, the "get on board" argument. Love it.

You don't consider yourself a leftist, but this particular idea has its genesis with leftism.

Remember, everything is a tactic and more often a lie. Now that they feel the coast is clear, it's OK to say it's a choice.

We'll see who's more electable, I suppose. If a Republican wins, then will you reconsider your position? If you move to a place where the majority of people condemn homosexuality, will you "get on board?"

Deal with it, Strad. If Juan says you're a leftie then you're a leftie.

[Glen]

i think juan has a valid point. my brother and i have noticed, as have you, that things that used to objectionable are no longer being treated that way, and there's some good in that. but we've also noticed that some of the more vocal proponents INSIST that we as a society MUST accept nearly anything and everything, and i have an issue with that.

for instance, the issue of homosexuality comes to mind (since it was mentioned). i have no issue treating anyone nicely. but i don't believe that homosexuality is okay because the bible condemns it. i don't think i should be forced to accept things that violate my spiritual/religious beliefs. it doesn't make me a hater (i've been called that on this board because i don't accept some things) because i'm not walking around condemning people - that's between each person and God.

i think what makes juan's point have some validity is that the social justice crusaders on the left are more likely to be the ones to insist we all accept whatever they're promoting, and that if we don't, we're racist/misogynist/hateful people. that's simply not true for everyone who disagrees.

If more people were like you we would have fewer problems. Unfortunately, the vocal minorities on either extreme get the most attention.

[Tank]

thanks, glen, that means a lot.

[Stradling]

Ah, the "get on board" argument. Love it.

You don't consider yourself a leftist, but this particular idea has its genesis with leftism.

Remember, everything is a tactic and more often a lie. Now that they feel the coast is clear, it's OK to say it's a choice.

We'll see who's more electable, I suppose. If a Republican wins, then will you reconsider your position? If you move to a place where the majority of people condemn homosexuality, will you "get on board?"

I didn't say I thought it was a choice, because I am quite certain it isn't a choice. My point was, what if it is a choice, does it really matter? Why would I condemn homosexuality, when I don't consider it a choice? I am not a leftist. I am assuming you wouldn't consider yourself a conformist just because you conform to everything the "right" has to say. If I had to be like you in order to consider myself a republican, then I guess I would choose to be an independent. Enjoy conforming to what you are told to do.

[UndertheHalo]

Im just baffled that MS thinks i'm some kind of 1950's racist because of my comments.  Were they really that nasty ? I mean I referred to a person born as a male as a he.  I don't understand the equivalency.  Even with gays, I dont get the connection.  Oh and to answer the question about a friend or person I know announcing a gender change in order to fulfill their true nature...How would I treat them ? Well, to be honest I'm not sure.  I would have to talk to that person, I think thats fair.  I would do my best to have a generous spirit about it.  Its not the simplest thing to pretend someones identity is completely different.  Ugh.. I hate to use Bruce Jenner as an example, but that man has children  and family and friends.  What about them ? Is it fair to just expect them to just forget about the man that they knew ? I imagine its very painful for them.  So like I said, I don't how I would deal with it.  Fortunately I doubt I will ever have to.

Edited September 4, 2015 by UndertheHalo

[Rico]

It's dumb and severely harmful to children who will now wonder if they're really women because they played with dolls once or if they should marry their best friend. The real harm is this disgusting movement. 

This could be the dumbest thing I've heard you say.

[Stradling]

thanks, glen, that means a lot.

While I disagree, and I am sure part of why I disagree is because it hits home, I truly value your approach on all things Tank. Glen is right, you respect differences even if you don't agree with them.

[juansavage1]

i think juan has a valid point. my brother and i have noticed, as have you, that things that used to objectionable are no longer being treated that way, and there's some good in that. but we've also noticed that some of the more vocal proponents INSIST that we as a society MUST accept nearly anything and everything, and i have an issue with that.

 

for instance, the issue of homosexuality comes to mind (since it was mentioned). i have no issue treating anyone nicely. but i don't believe that homosexuality is okay because the bible condemns it. i don't think i should be forced to accept things that violate my spiritual/religious beliefs. it doesn't make me a hater (i've been called that on this board because i don't accept some things) because i'm not walking around condemning people - that's between each person and God. 

 

i think what makes juan's point have some validity is that the social justice crusaders on the left are more likely to be the ones to insist we all accept whatever they're promoting, and that if we don't, we're racist/misogynist/hateful people. that's simply not true for everyone who disagrees.

 

 

Being nice isn't what people care about. It's about changing society. Have you noticed that liberals only care about children when it's to expand government? Being nice to gays or cross dressers is only important when it also comes with changing society. 

 

I think, like most people here, I thought about anything gay maybe once a couple of years, growing up, usually having to do with some news thing about AIDS or something. Now, you can't avoid it if you tried. I never bothered anybody or even contemplated some societal punishment. 

 

All of the things they care about happen to be against the traditional family, something leftists have always had an antipathy to. Am I paranoid or making this up? 

 

Well, the plan was set by the FOUNDING LEFTIST DOCUMENT, the Communist manifesto: 

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

 

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

[juansavage1]

I didn't say I thought it was a choice, because I am quite certain it isn't a choice. My point was, what if it is a choice, does it really matter? Why would I condemn homosexuality, when I don't consider it a choice? I am not a leftist. I am assuming you wouldn't consider yourself a conformist just because you conform to everything the "right" has to say. If I had to be like you in order to consider myself a republican, then I guess I would choose to be an independent. Enjoy conforming to what you are told to do.

Whether it was a choice mattered a great deal ten years ago. 

[Stradling]

This could be the dumbest thing I've heard you say.

and that is saying A LOT!!!

[juansavage1]

This could be the dumbest thing I've heard you say.

Why? 

[Stradling]

Being nice isn't what people care about. It's about changing society. Have you noticed that liberals only care about children when it's to expand government? Being nice to gays or cross dressers is only important when it also comes with changing society.

I think, like most people here, I thought about anything gay maybe once a couple of years, growing up, usually having to do with some news thing about AIDS or something. Now, you can't avoid it if you tried. I never bothered anybody or even contemplated some societal punishment.

All of the things they care about happen to be against the traditional family, something leftists have always had an antipathy to. Am I paranoid or making this up?

Well, the plan was set by the FOUNDING LEFTIST DOCUMENT, the Communist manifesto:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

675]All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

675]That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

675]But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

675]The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

675]Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

675]On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

675]The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

675]Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

675]But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

675]And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

675]The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

675]But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

675]The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

675]He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

675]For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

675]Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

675]Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

675]The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

675]The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

675]National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

675]The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

675]In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

675]The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

675]Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

675]What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

675]When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

675]When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

675]“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

675]“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

675]What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

675]But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

675]The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

675]But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

675]We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

675]The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

675]Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

675]These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

675]Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

35]1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

675]When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

675]In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

We really need a marxist forum.

[Stradling]

Whether it was a choice mattered a great deal ten years ago.

To whom?

[Rico]

On the original topic.  I'm generally for LGBT rights, but in this case if the girls are uncomfortable with her using the locker room then the school needs to respect their wishes.  They have rights too.

[Stradling]

On the original topic. I'm generally for LGBT rights, but in this case if the girls are uncomfortable with her using the locker room then the school needs to respect their wishes. They have rights too.

I agree with this.

[juansavage1]

We really need a marxist forum.

I was thinking of starting a fundamentals of Marxism thread. It's something of which I know a fair amount. People don't realize where their ideas come from. Do most people realize that their belief in human dignity unalienable human rights is Judeo-Christian? Probably not. 

[juansavage1]

To whom?

Well, it was a big part of the "gay rights" movement. 

 

[Stradling]

I was thinking of starting a fundamentals of Marxism thread. It's something of which I know a fair amount. People don't realize where their ideas come from. Do most people realize that their belief in human dignity unalienable human rights is Judeo-Christian? Probably not.

Take this the right way, the way it is intended, that will be a very lonely thread, enjoy.

[Rico]

Why? 

You make it sound like wanting equal rights for LGBT is somehow making straight kids gay.  You don't see how dumb that is?

[juansavage1]

Generally, these things go like this: 

 

1. Tolerance. Leave them alone. 

2. Acceptance. They're just like you. 

3. Superiority. They're better than you. Look at this and that about yourselves. 

4. Celebration/ social compliance. Stand up and cheer or you're a hater/can't work here, etc. 

5. Compliance. Agree or you're in jail. 

[Stradling]

Well, it was a big part of the "gay rights" movement.

Oh, ok. I will from now on get my social and political opinions from pop artists, thank you very much for setting me "straight".

[juansavage1]

Take this the right way, the way it is intended, that will be a very lonely thread, enjoy.

Do you think so? It's a shame because you'd learn a lot. If you don't learn this, you're going to go through life accepting any crap coming from Marxists as science.