Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

But also, the comment is ostensibly about gun control...

When I advocate for very strict gun control, it's definitely not on the grounds that cops and soldiers are mass murderers.

And that's the point; the fact that a small portion of people will take advantage of lax gun laws to do horrible things doesn't imply that most gun owners (including people who carry guns for their jobs) are responsible for the problems. Similarly, rules about examinations do not imply all or even most students are cheaters, but that some students will use the lack of rules to cheat. So, things like dress codes don't imply everyone affected by them needs to be prevented from running around naked in public, but that some people will choose to do whatever they can get away with to get attention and/or annoy people.

Rules that affect everyone exist because of the minority of people who would do extreme things without them; they in no way suggest that everyone would do so otherwise.

[Wahoo Redux]

It is very hard to commit mass murder with fake boobs, Marshy.

As is so often the case, you have apples and oranges there, my friend.

We have licenses to drive a car, reams of paperwork to buy a house, I.D.s to vote, and you can't change your name legally without court approval.

But regulating guns during the era of random mass killings and nation-wide gun violence (worse in red states)? 

I know you are striving for a "gotcha" that lays bare the hypocrisy of all these liberal-types and their attempts at outraging parents, but come on.

[kaysixteen]

Are you just trying to be an annoyance?   The fact that many RC priests have molested kids does not mean all Catholics should be excluded from anything, and nothing I said remotely could legitimately be interpreted as suggesting such.

So let's now try a different tack, or perhaps two:

1) trying to create dress codes to punish trans teachers is one thing, and we could discuss the merits thereof elsewhere, but are there no legitimate reasons for public schools to impose reasonable dress codes on faculty, who are, like it or not, shepherding children.   If you come to school with a Judas Priest concert shirt, and have not bathed recently, is there no legitimate reason that the principal oughtn't be able to send you home to clean up and change into appropriate attire?

2) Who properly gets to decide what is 'age-appropriate' material to be taught to children, esp pre-pubescent ones?   Should parents and their elected representatives have a say, according to the predominant values and expectations of their community, or is perhaps the deep wisdom of a 23yo fresh from an education program to be considered dispositive, even all that matters?

[marshwiggle]

It is very hard to commit mass murder with fake boobs, Marshy.

As is so often the case, you have apples and oranges there, my friend.

We have licenses to drive a car, reams of paperwork to buy a house, I.D.s to vote, and you can't change your name legally without court approval.

But regulating guns during the era of random mass killings and nation-wide gun violence (worse in red states)? 

In Canada, we have strict regulations on gun ownership. They are enforced at the border since there are many obnoxious idiots uninformed visitors who expect to be able to bring their arsenals with them. The vast majority of Canadians are perfectly happy with the rules, (and many think the rules should be tightened further), because restricting the actions of all for the sake of the few who would grossly abuse their freedom if the rules didn't exist is a worthwhile compromise.

I know you are striving for a "gotcha" that lays bare the hypocrisy of all these liberal-types and their attempts at outraging parents, but come on.

No, I'm saying that the arguments from extremists from either end of the political spectrum that it's all-or-nothing are bogus. Think of all of the calls for regulations on the Internet, and ask anyone from 40 or 50 *years ago how that would have been imagined then. In any area of human endeavour, in the absence of rules there will eventually be some who will engage in totally unexpected and shocking behaviour, which will be copied and amplified by others, until there will be widespread agreement that rules are necessary.


*before the World Wide Web, when the only people using the Internet were basically academics and government employees.

[Wahoo Redux]

No, I'm saying that the arguments from extremists from either end of the political spectrum that it's all-or-nothing are bogus....rules are necessary.

No reasonable person would disagree, certainly no one here, so you may stop with the gratuitous analogies, Mighty Marshdude.

[little bongo]

It is very hard to commit mass murder with fake boobs, Marshy.

As is so often the case, you have apples and oranges there, my friend.

We have licenses to drive a car, reams of paperwork to buy a house, I.D.s to vote, and you can't change your name legally without court approval.

But regulating guns during the era of random mass killings and nation-wide gun violence (worse in red states)? 

In Canada, we have strict regulations on gun ownership. They are enforced at the border since there are many obnoxious idiots uninformed visitors who expect to be able to bring their arsenals with them. The vast majority of Canadians are perfectly happy with the rules, (and many think the rules should be tightened further), because restricting the actions of all for the sake of the few who would grossly abuse their freedom if the rules didn't exist is a worthwhile compromise.

I know you are striving for a "gotcha" that lays bare the hypocrisy of all these liberal-types and their attempts at outraging parents, but come on.

No, I'm saying that the arguments from extremists from either end of the political spectrum that it's all-or-nothing are bogus. Think of all of the calls for regulations on the Internet, and ask anyone from 40 or 50 *years ago how that would have been imagined then. In any area of human endeavour, in the absence of rules there will eventually be some who will engage in totally unexpected and shocking behaviour, which will be copied and amplified by others, until there will be widespread agreement that rules are necessary.


*before the World Wide Web, when the only people using the Internet were basically academics and government employees.

The amount of tap-dancing required to "explain" your morally and logically bankrupt statement about the Klan and Nazis is admittedly pretty impressive--not since Fred Astaire teamed up with Eleanor Powell in Broadway Melody of 1940 have I seen such footwork.

This fixation on "actual" trans people v. those who want to "get attention and/or annoy people" is... odd. Is there some sort of cabal, like the Elders of Transsexual Transylvania, who are actively plotting to put worldwide school boards in awkward situations? And even if there were, to put things a bit bluntly, who gives a flying f-ck? Unless, perhaps, the only reason you're bringing these questions up is to get attention and/or annoy people...

Hmmm.

[marshwiggle]

It is very hard to commit mass murder with fake boobs, Marshy.

As is so often the case, you have apples and oranges there, my friend.

We have licenses to drive a car, reams of paperwork to buy a house, I.D.s to vote, and you can't change your name legally without court approval.

But regulating guns during the era of random mass killings and nation-wide gun violence (worse in red states)? 

In Canada, we have strict regulations on gun ownership. They are enforced at the border since there are many obnoxious idiots uninformed visitors who expect to be able to bring their arsenals with them. The vast majority of Canadians are perfectly happy with the rules, (and many think the rules should be tightened further), because restricting the actions of all for the sake of the few who would grossly abuse their freedom if the rules didn't exist is a worthwhile compromise.

I know you are striving for a "gotcha" that lays bare the hypocrisy of all these liberal-types and their attempts at outraging parents, but come on.

No, I'm saying that the arguments from extremists from either end of the political spectrum that it's all-or-nothing are bogus. Think of all of the calls for regulations on the Internet, and ask anyone from 40 or 50 *years ago how that would have been imagined then. In any area of human endeavour, in the absence of rules there will eventually be some who will engage in totally unexpected and shocking behaviour, which will be copied and amplified by others, until there will be widespread agreement that rules are necessary.


*before the World Wide Web, when the only people using the Internet were basically academics and government employees.

The amount of tap-dancing required to "explain" your morally and logically bankrupt statement about the Klan and Nazis is admittedly pretty impressive--not since Fred Astaire teamed up with Eleanor Powell in Broadway Melody of 1940 have I seen such footwork.

This fixation on "actual" trans people v. those who want to "get attention and/or annoy people" is... odd. Is there some sort of cabal, like the Elders of Transsexual Transylvania, who are actively plotting to put worldwide school boards in awkward situations? And even if there were, to put things a bit bluntly, who gives a flying f-ck? Unless, perhaps, the only reason you're bringing these questions up is to get attention and/or annoy people...

Hmmm.

Jessica Yaniv

Jessica Yaniv (whose legal name is Jessica Simpson)is a Canadian transgender activist in British Columbia who is best known for filing at least 15 complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender identity against various beauty salons after they refused to wax her male genitalia. The complaints were filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in 2018 and 2019. It was the first major case of alleged transgender discrimination in retail in Canada. In 2019, the Tribunal rejected her complaints and ruled Yaniv had racist motives. In following years, Yaniv has gone on to make additional complaints of discrimination, libel and privacy breach.

Not school boards, but small businesses typically run by immigrant women.

[Wahoo Redux]

Are you just trying to be an annoyance?   The fact that many RC priests have molested kids does not mean all Catholics should be excluded from anything, and nothing I said remotely could legitimately be interpreted as suggesting such.

That was sarcasm to make a point.  Stereotyping and prejudice are unreasonable, aren't they?  Although the fact that the Catholic Church covered up its pedophilia problem for decades should be a cause for concern...

So let's now try a different tack, or perhaps two:

1) trying to create dress codes to punish trans teachers is one thing, and we could discuss the merits thereof elsewhere, but are there no legitimate reasons for public schools to impose reasonable dress codes on faculty, who are, like it or not, shepherding children.   If you come to school with a Judas Priest concert shirt, and have not bathed recently, is there no legitimate reason that the principal oughtn't be able to send you home to clean up and change into appropriate attire?

Bathing and dressing appropriately are fine, but you are falling into the Marshwiggle analogy pit. 

There is no reason to bring that up since appropriate dress is a standard aspect of any professional position and teacher dress does not seem to be a problem that schoolboards are negotiating except for certain minority demographics. 

Your purpose is to equate trans-clothing with an unkempt, inappropriate person-----although I am not sure I see the problem with a Judas Priest T-shirt; at one point they were a major musical act
(and yes, I know what the name refers to). 

This prejudice "gotcha" you fell into earlier. 

You may pretend, my friend, but your purpose is to make some sort of argument that trans-people are inappropriate because of [whatever prejudice you are working toward].

2) Who properly gets to decide what is 'age-appropriate' material to be taught to children, esp pre-pubescent ones?   Should parents and their elected representatives have a say, according to the predominant values and expectations of their community, or is perhaps the deep wisdom of a 23yo fresh from an education program to be considered dispositive, even all that matters?

We're back to this again, are we?

Fine.  "The community" has a say, but the community is also part of the greater whole and must follow federal laws and guidelines.  This includes "dispositive" 23-year-olds (who obviously should have no opinions, even when charged with running a classroom, right?).  So sure, but let the teachers do their jobs as we moguls of higher ed would prefer to be allowed to do our jobs.  Control should have its limits.

So sorry, buddy, but your enclaves of various bigotries still need to be part of the zeitgeist.   

[Wahoo Redux]

Jessica Yaniv

Jessica Yaniv (whose legal name is Jessica Simpson)is a Canadian transgender activist in British Columbia who is best known for filing at least 15 complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender identity against various beauty salons after they refused to wax her male genitalia. The complaints were filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in 2018 and 2019. It was the first major case of alleged transgender discrimination in retail in Canada. In 2019, the Tribunal rejected her complaints and ruled Yaniv had racist motives. In following years, Yaniv has gone on to make additional complaints of discrimination, libel and privacy breach.

Not school boards, but small businesses typically run by immigrant women.

Once again, Marshy, you have picked a single weird incident to highlight.  Why?  You're not trying to imply that this is the way all trans people behave, are you?  That would be stereotyping. 

[little bongo]

Okay, thanks for the laugh.

And Jessica, wherever you are, keep your freak flag flying. And if you really are a bigot, cut it out. It's not a good look.

So... we need additional laws, systems, checks and balances to protect us from Jessica? Is she indeed the Canadian face of the Elders of Transsexual Transylvania (EOTT)? I think my previous question regarding who cares enough to offer airborne copulation still stands.

[marshwiggle]

Jessica Yaniv

Jessica Yaniv (whose legal name is Jessica Simpson)is a Canadian transgender activist in British Columbia who is best known for filing at least 15 complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender identity against various beauty salons after they refused to wax her male genitalia. The complaints were filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in 2018 and 2019. It was the first major case of alleged transgender discrimination in retail in Canada. In 2019, the Tribunal rejected her complaints and ruled Yaniv had racist motives. In following years, Yaniv has gone on to make additional complaints of discrimination, libel and privacy breach.

Not school boards, but small businesses typically run by immigrant women.

Once again, Marshy, you have picked a single weird incident to highlight.  Why? 

To point out how simply requiring self-identification opens the door to all kinds of abuses like this. (No, all trans people don't do this. But having no rules about who qualifies is where this mess comes from.)

Okay, thanks for the laugh.

Yeah, it's hilarious seeing these immigrant women facing the challenges of a new country afraid of going to jail or being bankrupted.

Especially when their religious beliefs forbid them having this contact with male genitalia. A real knee-slapper, that is.

And Jessica, wherever you are, keep your freak flag flying. And if you really are a bigot, cut it out. It's not a good look.

Sorry, which is it? Are you some sort of bigot for suggesting that a person's motives matter?

[Wahoo Redux]

Jessica Yaniv

Jessica Yaniv (whose legal name is Jessica Simpson)is a Canadian transgender activist in British Columbia who is best known for filing at least 15 complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender identity against various beauty salons after they refused to wax her male genitalia. The complaints were filed with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in 2018 and 2019. It was the first major case of alleged transgender discrimination in retail in Canada. In 2019, the Tribunal rejected her complaints and ruled Yaniv had racist motives. In following years, Yaniv has gone on to make additional complaints of discrimination, libel and privacy breach.

Not school boards, but small businesses typically run by immigrant women.

Once again, Marshy, you have picked a single weird incident to highlight.  Why? 

To point out how simply requiring self-identification opens the door to all kinds of abuses like this. (No, all trans people don't do this. But having no rules about who qualifies is where this mess comes from.)

Sounds like the "mess" comes from the bigots in most cases----like, perhaps, using this example as representative of the whole demographic (deny, if you will).  Again, you have one example, not a "mess."  The person in question should have a little more sensitivity than to expect beauticians to wax her male neither parts, but this is one singular jackass who has probably faced a lifetime of prejudice----still not okay, but maybe understandable.  If we applied the same rubrics to professors (taking a singular incident or episode and trying to apply it to all professors), the industry would be in much worse condition than it even is.

You have one jackass.  You have nothing.

Or maybe we could apply your reasoning to Christianity.  If you want "a mess," I could give you plenty examples of Christians doing some pretty terrible stuff.  Maybe we should limit what Christians are allowed to do?

[little bongo]

Okay, thanks for the laugh.

Yeah, it's hilarious seeing these immigrant women facing the challenges of a new country afraid of going to jail or being bankrupted.

Especially when their religious beliefs forbid them having this contact with male genitalia. A real knee-slapper, that is.

Well, here's the funny part. I ask what about people pretending to be trans to annoy people has you particularly disturbed, and you trot out, in Wahoo's words, one jackass. As if you've saved news of Jessica in your virtual back pocket to provide the ultimate Q.E.D. "See?! Abuse! Abuse! Here's the proof! I found one!"

That's the knee-slapper. Indeed, I'm slapping my knees as I type, which isn't easy.

But the immigrant women to whom Jessica was a nuisance (and was punished for it) must, or should, be eternally grateful that someone of your upstanding moral fibre is looking out for their best interests. I hope they at least send you holiday cards every year. You've earned it, you mensch.

[/quote]
And Jessica, wherever you are, keep your freak flag flying. And if you really are a bigot, cut it out. It's not a good look.
[/quote]

[/quote]
Sorry, which is it? Are you some sort of bigot for suggesting that a person's motives matter?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure it's possible for Jessica to keep her freak flag flying AND not be a bigot.  If trying to put the two together make me bigoted, I guess i can live with it.

[nebo113]

Does this mean biological females cannot wear pants?  Will there be a genital examination to determine whether anyone wearing pants has a penis?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-dress-code-for-texas-agency-clothes-must-conform-to-biological-gender/ar-AA1an0Nn

[marshwiggle]

Does this mean biological females cannot wear pants? 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-dress-code-for-texas-agency-clothes-must-conform-to-biological-gender/ar-AA1an0Nn

For men, business attire means long-sleeved dress shirts, ties and sports coats with trousers and dress shoes or boots, according to the dress code. For women, it means "tailored pantsuits, businesslike dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots."

So, no.