What’s Wrong with the World

Reason No. 1472 to keep your kids the hell out of government schools if you can.

"Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be sissies and tomboys..."

If the principal was telling them they had to go home and change, then I guess it was mandatory. That's pretty clear. This is all part of the fact that the transvestite/transsexual agenda now just is completely joined with the homosexual agenda in practice. Laws and policies giving special privilege to the one are aimed--usually absolutely explicitly--also to give special privilege to the other.

After our town passed an ordinance giving special status not only to homosexuality but also to "gender identity," we heard of a sort of "sting" operation at a local department store. A young lady was working in the local women's clothing department when two men came in and insisted that one of them wanted to try on a skirt. They then deliberately embarrassed her by demanding that she tell the man trying it on whether it looked good on him. I believe as I heard the story, she was tongue-tied and did not respond. I think she should have told him it wasn't his color or something similarly sardonic. It was such an obviously bullying incident that it made me ill to think about the poor girl. Yet those men were taking advantage of official victim status.

The homosexual agenda without the transsexual agenda is just so 90's.

From JC's last link:

"If a boy grows up at ease and confident about his masculine identity as a result of a close loving relationship with his father, with same-sex friends in childhood, with a mother who supports his manly development and is protected from vicious bullying and sexual predators, the chances are minimal that he will experience same-sex attraction in adolescence. Even if one or two items on the above list are missing, the chances are still small that the boy will become homosexually involved as an adult. Generally, the histories of men engaging in same-sex behaviors reveal a history of cumulative problems: significant peer rejection, a distant father, a poor body image, low self-esteem, an overprotective or controlling mother, victimization by bullies, or sexual abuse. Fortunately these conflicts can be resolved, and the masculine identity can be strengthened and then embraced."

Wow. What a bunch of egregious fluff.

The second worst thing about semi-Freudian stuff like this is that it saddles perfectly innocent parents with a burden of totally undeserved guilt.

And the first worst thing about it is that it's *simply not true.* In fact, it's not even remotely serious.

In my opinion, homosexuality is, by and large, an extremely dull and unimportant topic. But if we must discuss it, we ought to discuss it intelligently.

I would hope you wd. at least agree, Steve, that forcing kids to have "gender-bending day" is not, shall we say, helpful.

Not to mention that it's fascistic. There is something rather sick-making about the picture of that principal literally getting up and telling students that they had to go home and change into gender-bending clothes and come back. It's like the town bully saying, "Yeah, Twinky, jump up and down with your hand on your head. That's right. No, I didn't tell you you could stop. Hahaha."

And the continued and insistent message that gender is completely malleable and a made-up thing has got to encourage at least some measure of confusion.

Two more points, Steve:

1) For a boy to think himself a girl is not the same thing as homosexuality. Even the liberals pushing this agenda don't think that it is. That's why they've added "gender identity" to their roster of things to glorify and push for special rights for. Not all homosexuals are transvestites or wish to have sex-change operations; emphatically not, in fact.

2) Surely the question of whether, w.r.t. homosexuality itself, nurture as well as or instead of nature plays an important role, is something that intelligent and informed people can disagree about rather than being a matter of "egregious fluff" on the non-biological side. While I share your dislike for saddling parents with an undeserved burden of guilt, I hardly think that the entirely physiological etiology of same-sex attraction is such a firmly established scientific fact that we should be utterly dismissive of opinions on the environmental side. As I'm sure you know, the "gay gene" theory has taken some whacks lately, and the theory you yourself have suggested occasionally (a virus, if I recall correctly) is, as you must know yourself, hardly uncontroversial. So being that dismissive of a contrary opinion seems, to put it mildly, unnecessary and premature.

I don't think the article about the arrest in North Carolina is clear about why the students were told they were dressed inappropriately. Is it not possible that they might have been participants that were in some way taking it too far instead?

I went to a Fayetteville, NC high school (not 71st) and I remember such days being a part of spirit week. If I remember correctly, on such days fewer than one-third of the students participated. I never participated and was never given any grief.

Of course I think such days are stupid and perhaps even harmful, but perhaps the interpretation here is a little overboard.

If they were in fact arrested for "going too far" in their dressing, that would of course be a better event than their being forced to dress as the opposite sex, Josh.

Nevertheless, it really is a problem for schools to be having such days, and they are definitely, now, part of the whole LGBT-whatever-whatever-new-craziness-we-can-make-up agenda.

Steve: I don't mean to imply that parents are always at fault. Personally, I don't even dismiss the possibility of a genetic contribution to the disorder. But there has been quite a lot of research done on the backgrounds of homosexual men and there do seem to be some common themes. To take just one of the environmental factors mentioned - sexual abuse - do you also dismiss these findings as "egregious fluff"?

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/

There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 pe cent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men. (15) What’s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7. (16)

Dr. Byrd continues:

There is an interesting problem with the research – we have been asking the wrong question for many years. If you ask men if they were sexually abused, many will say “no,” because “allowing” oneself to be sexually abused is incompatible with masculinity. However, if you ask men how old they were at the time of their first sexual experience, the data seems more accurate.

Sexual abuse causes havoc in the lives of boys – in part because of the way in which our culture differentially responds to boys and girls. Such abuse can certainly have the impact of gender confusion which contributes to gender identity which determines sexual orientation.

Most of the men that I have treated over the years have experienced some kind of trauma – some kind of premature introduction to sexuality either in the form of sexual abuse or some kind of pornography along with peer abuse.

The legacy of John Dewey strikes, again. More and more the edustablishment is being discredited by science, but as long as the state can be bamboozled, even the truth groans.

The Chicken

Yeah, the evidence of some kind of link between early sex abuse and homosexuality is extremely well documented. We may not have the exact mechanism down just yet, but we don't have the general mechanism for identifying as homosexual down yet either, so that's no big surprise.

The principal here could be sued. For one thing, it is virtually unheard of to demand a child to return home during the day: the principal cannot assume that there is a way for the child to get home in the middle of the day. And (assuming the costuming was "insufficiently" cross-gender), telling the kids that they have to change would be a direct violation of 1st amendment rights. (Not to mention the cop, who failed to self-identify as police. Surely that ought to automatically remove the charges of resisting arrest and assaulting a law enforcement officer.)

Lydia, I certainly agree that it's a problem.

Very interesting article, Jeff. Just a thought: wouldn't the requirement that a child dress in the clothes of the opposite sex constitute a form of religious discrimination, if it goes against the tenets of that child's religion? Orthodox Jews rightly consider such behavior an abomination, so they could certainly sue if their children were ordered by a school principal to dress in this way. I'm sure Muslims could sue too, and I can't imagine a school principal who'd dare to resist them. It seems that the leaders of the Christian Churches need to issue a few more prohibitions against certain kinds of conduct, in order to protect Christian schoolchildren from being compelled to take part in this sort of thing. What chance is there of an edict from Pope Benedict XVI, I wonder?

I was going to say the same thing about the "egregious fluff", but Steve Burton said it first. This is the kind of silly pop-psych stuff that we conservatives generally ridicule, except when it serves our agenda as it does here. Another example is the correlations that supposedly show all the damage caused by single parenthood: no argument is too bogus if it serves the right agenda. That said, I wouldn't go as far as Steve Burton and say anything about the conclusions themselves - only that the reasoning is ridiculous.

And yes, all this school indoctrination is awful. That goes without saying among conservatives. But whatever the cause of this gender identification problem among young children, I wonder what conservative Christians would actually do about it once the problem arises? To me at least that seems a less polemical and (therefore?) more interesting question.

Re the question about Orthodox Jews and Muslims: I think the rule of diversity is that religious diversity has precedence over gender/orientation diversity, except when that religion is Christianity. So there shouldn't be a problem for Jews and Muslims who want to sit this one out.

Lydia writes: "There is something rather sick-making about the picture of that principal literally getting up and telling students that they had to go home and change into gender-bending clothes and come back."

I entirely agree. If this alarming event took place anywhere other than in your imagination, then it is definitely long past time for...steps to be taken.

Aaron,

Your statement that "religious diversity has precedence over gender/orientation diversity, except when that religion is Christianity" may be an accurate reflection of "politically correct" thinking, but I'm sure it's not what the law says, since the law makes no exceptions. Rules that apply to one religion apply to all. My question is: if the parents of a Christian child (let's say, a Jehovah's Witness) refused to send their child to a government-run school on Cross-Gender Day, on the grounds that it violated the tenets of their religion, would they be legally entitled to do so?

Of possible interest to some:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/01/24/children-in-the-crosshairs/

That said, I wouldn't go as far as Steve Burton and say anything about the conclusions themselves - only that the reasoning is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about them? Empirically observed correlations combined with a common sense understanding of cause-and-effect make a case. If you reject the traditionally understood premise that certain conditions are necessary to turn boys into normal, healthy men, then of course the supporting observable correlations are less meaningful to you.

But whatever the cause of this gender identification problem among young children, I wonder what conservative Christians would actually do about it once the problem arises?

That's a great question. The answer is simple: we deal with it according to the teachings of Christ. That is to say, like all the rest of us with besetting sins and disordered desires, one afflicted with same-sex attraction prays for strength, lives chastely, receives the sacraments, and attempts with God's help to overcome such desires. Some have indeed been delivered from same-sex attraction entirely, while others struggle all of their lives. Parents, relatives and friends continue to love such a person just as they always had, and do not behave as though same-sex attraction defines the person. In other words we simply hobble along in a fallen world in charity and hope, but without compromising the truth.

Personally, I don't even dismiss the possibility of a genetic contribution to the disorder.

I don't either for the sake of argument, so I'm not arguing with you here but it is worth saying that there is something to be said for dismissing things up to and until evidence leads us to reconsider. We haven't seen that evidence yet and I think it is likely we won't. I'm all for watching empirical studies, but we must recognize that we have to have other guides too which often can lead us to dismiss these same studies on theological grounds. We should dismiss such things if we have good non-empirical grounds to do so. One would have been wise to dismiss the twin studies in the decades they were held sway as insufficient.

I've heard wise Christians such as William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias make the case. You know, that there may be a "genetic predisposition … but that doesn't mean you're not responsible for resisting." But the way they do this seems to me more a political position to avoid bogging down their apologetics enterprise in such questions. But whatever the case, the idea I think they seem to present is that for a Christian having such a "disposition" that wishes to overcome it, the norm is a grim twilight struggle unto death. I fully appreciate identifying with the struggles disordered folks face, but it does seem to me have a strong tinge of a hopelessness.

It seems to me similar to the way alcoholics are admonished --once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Problem is, it isn't true. Though there are some who never kick it and die of cirrhosis with a bottle in their hands, the vast majority actually walk away from it with little or no help and even drink socially without problems for the rest of their lives. But tell that at AA and they'll tell you you're in denial. So it goes.

But whatever the case, the idea I think they seem to present is that for a Christian having such a "disposition" that wishes to overcome it, the norm is a grim twilight struggle unto death. I fully appreciate identifying with the struggles disordered folks face, but it does seem to me have a strong tinge of a hopelessness.

The thing is, Mark, for most people the struggle with disordered desires of any kind is a "twilight struggle unto death". So we don't want to present a false hope or set anyone up for disappointment. And yet, you're right, sometimes total deliverance does happen and in a dramatic way. That's real too - but there are no promises to that effect. Keeping in mind that the desire itself, unless willed and consented to, is not sinful.

Just a thought: wouldn't the requirement that a child dress in the clothes of the opposite sex constitute a form of religious discrimination, if it goes against the tenets of that child's religion?

Sure, but it puts a lot of pressure on the child to have to be the one "opt out" for religious reasons. The social repercussions could be most unpleasant. In Des Moines, Iowa, 80 students were placed into homeschooling plans by their families to avoid "Gender Bender Day".

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44773

The scandal is that these events happen in the first place.

Actually I was asking what conservative Christians would do about young children with the problem described here, which is not homosexuality: apparently it's about identification, not sexual attraction. I already had an idea of the Christian approach to homosexually-oriented adults and adolescents.

Specifically, what should the parents tell their young child? How effeminate should they allow their boy to dress and behave, at home and outside the home? What should the school do about the child and his classmates? Agreed that celebrating this problem as if it were normal is crazy and should be beyond consideration. By the way, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that such a phenomenon actually exists, and is not just an invention of journalists!

The empirical argument shouldn't be taken seriously because there are several different common-sense hypotheses that explain the associations equally well, some of which are contrary to the common-sense explanation you suggested. For instance, it's common sense that if a boy is very effeminate, he's more likely to be rejected by his father and/or peers as a result. Here the causality goes in the opposite direction. Other common-sense explanations would suggest a common cause of both the effeminacy and the rejection. The empirical associations don't support one of these hypotheses over the others.

The scandal is that these events happen in the first place.

Exactly Jeff. Who cares if a principal mandated it or not. If it's happening in public schools that's all the more reason to keep our kids out of public schools.

Not to distract the discussion, but my wife attended high school with a fair number of out-of-the-closet homosexuals. A common thread she noticed (admittedly small sample size) was the absense of a father or alienation from one's father.

It seems to me similar to the way alcoholics are admonished --once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Problem is, it isn't true.

Quite right. The people in COURAGE demonstrate rather definitively that - at least for some individuals - their sexual orientation CAN IN FACT be turned around. For others, the strength of their deformed orientation may be muted. And for others, they can learn to live chaste lives with support from an understanding peer group, even in the face of homosexual orientation. It is, after all, far from hopeless for an unmarried heterosexual to live a chaste life until natural death. It used to be quite normal, for a whole sector of the population from governesses to clerics.

Mark, please tell me you're not making the argument that I sometimes hear from conservatives -- that addiction doesn't really exist?

We had a day like this at my Christian High School, way back in the 80s.

Of course back then it was a goofy part of Spirit Week, because guys in dresses was obviously ridiculous. Guess the obvious isn't obvious any more.

Having spent my young life in the world of ballet, surrounded by serious dancers and exposed to professionals from the U.S. and Europe, I could write a short essay on the differnce between the European males (very manly and heterosexual) and the American males (effeminate and sometimes homosexual). The difference was obvious to me as a 13 yr. old. If I have time later today, I may try to post something. Let's just say that genetics load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger.

As for homosexuality being genetic - If I understand the Scriptures correctly, and I think I do, all sin is genetic, passed down through the seed of Adam. Of course if you don't believe in Adam and Eve and the chronicle of man's Fall, then the whole discussion of sin vs. genetic predisposition to whatever tickles your fancy is a waste of time and who are we to judge?

Steve,

If this alarming event took place anywhere other than in your imagination,

That seems an unnecessarily sharp wording. It's not as though Jeff made up the incident. The only question is whether the reporter wrote it up so carelessly that the quite natural interpretation Jeff and I put on the reporter's words is incorrect, as Josh suggested it might be. But it's not as though we just thought this up "in our imaginations." That the principal was telling them to go home for that reason is an obvious and understandable way to take the story as written.

Certainly there is *some* environmental connection between sexual orientation and environment. How many Greeks today have homosexual tendencies, let alone pederastic ones? That said, there is probably a genetic component too, and whatever the causes the orientation appears to be fixed by adulthood. Also, transgendered people are not a particularly modern phenomenon. Cross-dressing Native American "Two-Spirits" are good counterexamples to that thesis.

That being said, this policy just seems outright abusive. I would feel disgusted to wear women's clothing precisely because it does not portray who I am or who I want to be. To suggest this would be "fun" is like calling torture a joyride.

The empirical argument shouldn't be taken seriously because there are several different common-sense hypotheses that explain the associations equally well, some of which are contrary to the common-sense explanation you suggested. For instance, it's common sense that if a boy is very effeminate, he's more likely to be rejected by his father and/or peers as a result. Here the causality goes in the opposite direction. Other common-sense explanations would suggest a common cause of both the effeminacy and the rejection. The empirical associations don't support one of these hypotheses over the others.

Aaron, you missed some of the emipirical claims in the article. I suspect that there are, indeed, non-environmental contributions to effeminacy in some boys. But according to therapists who deal with this problem, gender identification disorder can be "resolved fully" with early intervention and treatment along the lines suggested. That's part of the empirical claim.

According to Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley, experts in the treatment of gender identity problems in children, treatment should begin as soon as possible.

"...In general we concur with those who believe that the earlier treatment begins, the better. [1]...It has been our experience that a sizable number of children and their families can achieve a great deal of change. In these cases, the gender identity disorder resolves fully, and nothing in the children's behavior or fantasy suggest that gender identity issues remain problematic.... All things considered, however, we take the position that in such cases clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity[2]."

The effeminacy in some boys is so pronounced that parents may assume the problem is genetic or hormonal, but no such factors have been scientifically proven. Experts report that children assumed to have a biological problem responded positively to therapeutic intervention: According to Rekers, Lovaas, and Low:

"When we first saw him, the extent of his feminine identification was so profound (his mannerisms, gestures, fantasies, flirtations, etc., as shown in his 'swishing' around the home and the clinic, fully dressed as a woman with a long dress, wig, nail polish, high screechy voice, slatternly, seductive eyes) that it suggested irreversible neurological and biochemical determinants. After 26 months follow-up, he looked and acted like any other boy. People who viewed the video taped recordings of him before and after treatment talk of him as 'two different boys.'[3]"

Also, it seems to me that the sexual abuse correlation with respect to adult male homosexuality does not admit to an "effeminacy caused the abuse" explanation.

Is no one questioning the assumption "You are what you think you are."? This is the keystone of Liberalism.

According to liberalism, homosexuality is genetic but gender is not.

The emperor has no clothes, but if he did have clothes, liberalism would require that it be the queen's.

Actually I was asking what conservative Christians would do about young children with the problem described here ... Specifically, what should the parents tell their young child? How effeminate should they allow their boy to dress and behave, at home and outside the home? What should the school do about the child and his classmates?

Oh, I see.

The only thing to do is to prepare the boy to be a man. Obviously the boy should never be allowed to dress in a feminine way. Effeminacy should be discouraged and masculine behavior encouraged (with the understanding that masculinity does not always mean great athletic or mechanical ability). The daily influence of adult men and older boys should be sought at an early age. Contemporary children's books, films, and games should be avoided like the plague. In such cases I believe it is supremely important that the child be protected from the usual school environment which is likely to involve peer-rejection, bullying and abuse. Homeschooling or independent study programs are one possible solution. All-male schools are better in this regard as well. In any case, a boy is a boy, and failing to prepare him for manhood is a great injustice.

A footnote: As I said parenthetically, masculinity has many expressions beyond athletic or mechanical ability, and some boys simply are not gifted in this way. If such boys are to be helped it is essential that masculine culture be allowed to develop and flourish in other fields.

According to liberalism, homosexuality is genetic but gender is not.

LOL. That says it all.

If such boys are to be helped it is essential that masculine culture be allowed to develop and flourish in other fields.

That's an extremely wise saying, Jeff, and one I hadn't thought of before. What would it do to a musical young man, and how would it warp his future and his ability to develop his talents and make the contribution that God equipped him to make, if many classical music programs were dominated by effeminate men, for example? What about a young man with a talent for painting or, as Gina brought up above, dance? What about a young man who wants to study literature?

What about the way that our universities are becoming dominated by bullying female professors, by make-work, by "group projects," by the pointless spitting back of nonsense to the person who fed it to you? This is bad enough for girls, but my guess is that it will be even worse for boys. They won't get either the education they should be getting or the credentials they need. (Side note: Rudolf Flesch, the self-styled liberal writer on the subject of phonics, opines that the "whole word" method of teaching reading is worse for boys than for girls. His conjecture is, in essence, that boys have a lower tolerance than girls do for pointless baloney and are more likely to opt out of the whole process. Girls are more likely to be willing to "play the game," muddle through, and figure out how to read somehow along the way for themselves.)

My own concern has often been for the good of the fields. I grieve to see great fields of endeavor destroyed, given over to the trivial and the disgusting, and to see us driving away those who are truly talented and might contribute to the field.

I can see now that these sets of concerns dovetail.

The thing is, Mark, for most people the struggle with disordered desires of any kind is a "twilight struggle unto death". So we don't want to present a false hope or set anyone up for disappointment. And yet, you're right, sometimes total deliverance does happen and in a dramatic way. That's real too - but there are no promises to that effect. Keeping in mind that the desire itself, unless willed and consented to, is not sinful.

False hope and set people up for disappointment? Wow. Some people have a long twilight struggle with everything, but this doesn't mean it is the norm, and it certainly doesn't mean it should be presented as if it were such.

Look, I've known people that never stopped smoking after getting lung cancer. A personal friend of mine right now that is a professing Christian and father of three teenagers and a longtime Sunday school teacher has been eating himself into the grave despite pleading by his family, his doctor, and after the eventual onset of diabetes, a stroke, and lost year emergency triple bypass. It has ever been this way. These are character flaws that are not compartmentalized as my wife and I's experience with our friend are painfully showing us in deeply disturbing ways. Disorders as basic as this aren't confined to only that area alone, but to all areas of life.

To accept that there is such grossly damaging disordered behavior that most people cannot overcome even with God's grace is a devastating admission. It is an abandonment of the classic understanding of virtuous development. It is not the classic view, and not my personal experience. Getting free of disordered desires is a difficult struggle no question, but most bound to failure? What is the point of being a Christian if God can't straighten out your life in the most important ways most of the time for those that desire it? Maybe I was lucky to have been saved in a fundamentalist church after all. I think if they had preached such a depressing account of how God could work in the lives of believers I would have just given up. I thought that was the whole point of Christianity, that God changes us dramatically in this life and not just in the next as other the other religions only dare to claim. This does not mean I believe that we can be perfect in this life --I'm sure we can't-- or that I think that no one should ever struggle always with anything.

Mark, please tell me you're not making the argument that I sometimes hear from conservatives -- that addiction doesn't really exist?

People who deny there is "any such thing as addictions"? I've never heard anyone say that. I've had a few. Does that answer your question?

As for homosexuality being genetic - If I understand the Scriptures correctly, and I think I do, all sin is genetic, passed down through the seed of Adam. Of course if you don't believe in Adam and Eve and the chronicle of man's Fall, then the whole discussion of sin vs. genetic predisposition to whatever tickles your fancy is a waste of time and who are we to judge?

It doesn't follow that all sin is genetic. But you're right to point out that the question is not whether there is a genetic component, but whether there is a genetic component that operates differently from other disorders and desires that are not considered genetic. Perhaps there is a genetic component to gluttony, or preferring blondes or strawberry ice cream, but the issue is whether the desire operates in a functionally equivalent fashion to non-genetic factors. If it does, then searching for genetic causes is fairly pointless. But the wide (and correct in my view) assumption is that a genetic cause would not be functionally equivalent to non-genetic ones. This is why billions of our tax dollars are funneled into finding genetic causes for alcoholism for example. It isn't because people think genetic causes are functionally equivalent to non-genetic causes it is quite clear enough.

I can see now that these sets of concerns dovetail.

That's a good way of putting it, Lydia. And where those concerns dovetail, what we might call "merit" resolves them both.

But I am still of the opinion that, in some fields, female-dominance really does improve things technically - or at least does not change the field for the worse overall. Nursing is one example. Before the Civil War all nurses were male. It really is not convincing to argue that female dominance in nursing has ruined or degraded or destroyed the profession. In many ways it's advantageous.

So - I'm OK with some fields being mixed or predominantly female. (Truly, in nursing as in teaching and other lines, we need both men and women.)

That said, I would also suggest that the advantage of merit-based feminine contributions in the workplace does not outweigh the social importance of providing men with jobs for which they are best suited in a masculine context.

Respectabiggle writes:

"We had a day like this at my Christian High School, way back in the 80s.

"Of course back then it was a goofy part of Spirit Week, because guys in dresses was obviously ridiculous. Guess the obvious isn't obvious any more."

Well, ain't that the truth? Best comment on this thread.

I imagine Respectabiggle is right. What's changed since then? Hint: It isn't that conservative Christians have grown inexplicably touchy and lost their sense of humor. It might have _something_ to do with the existence of GLBT clubs (see the T in there?) in public high schools, which was nearly unthinkable in the 80's.

The transsexual agenda is taken with deadly seriousness by its proponents and is definitely gaining ground in policy and law. We who think it's a bad agenda would be fools to pretend this is isn't the case.

Lydia - sorry, but I really did get a bit annoyed. The true facts of the story were pretty easily available, just by clicking on the links and looking at the comments. (It's always the comments that explain what really went down).

[replying to Lydia @ 11:36 a.m.]

Jeff C. @ 7:03 p.m. yesterday: Warren Throckmorton criticizes the Tomeo & al study you cite here:

http://wthrockmorton.com/tag/marie-tomeo/

To his criticisms, I'd add that the gay subjects were attendees at a "gay pride" parade - hardly a representative group. Kind of like treating participants in Berlin's "Loveparade" as representative of heterosexuality.

In general, I'd recommend Throckmorton's stuff - He's an envangelical Christian, a professor at Grove City, and a proponent of the idea that same-sex-attraction can sometimes be altered - but he's also a good scholar, who has courageously resisted pressure to change his views from both the left and the right.

I read the comments just now. They're written in mostly illiterate English (yes, that's relevant to how easy it is to get a clear story from them) and contain semi-coherent statements of support for the girl and a couple of references to her trying to leave the auditorium in the boys' line. The one bit of support for Josh's theory is that one person says the principal "told them they could have this gender-bender day" and then called them in assembly and told them to go home. Another parent refers to the absence of guidelines given in advance. I agree that this supports Josh's interpretation, but I don't think that a) anybody spells that out clearly or b) there is something to get angry about when people take a news story at face value without reading through all the mess of the comments. Comments on news stories are typically an absolute morass and full of unmoderated junk, foul language, pointless insult, etc., and to imply that anyone is irresponsible for citing a news story without reading through the swampland of the comments seems, to put it mildly, extreme.

LOL! I can't wait until your generation dies and we take over. Say what you want but you are on the out!

Need I say it: what goes around comes around. Tulip can't wait for the current generation to die off, but, oh, he should wait to see how he feels in thirty years.

The Chicken

Yep. Funny how there's always someone more progressive than you. Then you become a conservative who's in their way.

There are many genetically predispositive conditions. Should we, then, have an Obssessive-compulsive day or a Schizophrenia day in schools? Perhaps an Alcoholics day? Sympathy is fine, but emulation is often useless. A boy who dresses up like a girl still doesn't experience the urge to do so that marks a transvestite. Pretending to hear voices telling someone to kill themselves is not the same as experiencing the unrelenting misery of having to deal with those voices 24 hours a day. I can sympathize with a woman's PMS, but if I were a human male and not a Chicken, that would not mean that I could experience it or even should. Should I pretend to have a baby if I were not female? All of this is fine as exercises in acting school, but in a middle school? I'd rather they spend the time factoring polynomials. Now, there's a game the whole family can play.

The Chicken

Don't worry Tulip, I'm likely your generation; I'll be around a while, God willing.

Lydia - I guess the long & the short of it is that I've got a lot more time on my hands than you do.

I rather enjoy sorting through all the junk in internet comment threads, to figure out the Real Story. And it certainly schools one in the realities of who & what we're dealing with, here.

But I can certainly understand why you might feel otherwise.

I'm much inclined to agree with your interpretation of the event, Steve. The more I've thought about it the more I've realized that the passionate defense (by commentators) of the girl as "not being inappropriately dressed" fits into an overall picture in which the principal was actually what one might call the "relative conservative" in the picture. So too does the implication of one commentator that the principal was somehow insulting toward homosexual students: Pressured by students into having this "gender-bender day" (which presumably had been allowed and/or instituted by a previous principal), the new principal gives in and organizes the day but is then shocked at some of the actual costumes people show up in. She calls an assembly and says that some of the students will have to go home and change. This lesbian girl gets up and "has words with" the principal as well as making the gesture to her, and everything goes down from then on as described in the story.

Still, I don't think there's anything to be annoyed about in Jeff's and my having taken the story the other way based on the article.

Our journalists do not any longer know how to write or make themselves clear even on basic facts, much less motivations and background. It's become a kind of terminal disease of the profession.

"Our journalists do not any longer know how to write or make themselves clear even on basic facts, much less motivations and background. It's become a kind of terminal disease of the profession."

Precisely so.

And as for this "lesbian girl" - most likely she's just a tomboy, and, with any luck, she'll get over it, in due course.

So if I'm reading this correctly. There was a weird day at school. One side or the other got mad at someone. A lot of people had to go home (or maybe just one) but EVERYBODY'S SCHOOL DAY WAS DISRUPTED.

It is enough that a day of learning was subsumed by something other than learning.

Yeah, definitely going to homeschool mine.