LGBT Inclusive Sex Education in Schools: Why the Dispute?

First topic message reminder :

The National Union of Teachers announced on Sunday that pupils should be taught a "positive portrayal" of same sex relationships as a means of promoting LGBT equality in the classroom. Delegates at the National Union of Teachers conference in Harrogate overwhelmingly approved the motion on LGBT rights marking a huge step forward in the gay rights movement. The rights of young LGBT people who have often been made to feel marginalised and excluded from the mainstream sex education programme are finally being recognised. The conference noted that "homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are still strongly prevalent in our schools" and that a recent NUT survey of LGBT teachers revealed that "only 10% of LGBT teachers felt confident to be 'out' to students". The NUT Agenda thus calls upon present and future governments to appoint an education secretary that supports LGBT rights, to encourage the promotion of LGBT History Month in schools - rewarding the schools that do this, to train teachers on how to deal with homophobic incidents so that they know what to do when they arise and to encourage schools to develop a curriculum that is inclusive of LGBT issues.

However, amidst this positive step forward in equality there has been some resistance amongst faith communities who argue that teachers will be made to choose between their job and their faith. The Christian Institute have given voice to such concerns, stating that the positive promotion of same-sex relationships in schools "is itself an act of intolerance towards mainstream Christians and their beliefs". Simon Calvert, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, has professed that "Church schools already teach love and tolerance of others without having to explicitly approve of same sex relationships".




http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anna-tippett/lgbt-inclusive-sex-education-in-schools_b_7031982.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

sex ed should be part of science too.
Biology and evolution, homosexuality is a really good example for showing the difference between simple individual evolution used to explain why giraffes have long necks and complex social evolution, maybe then people would understand that Homo Sapien evolve as a 'tribe' not just as individuals.

Homosexuality is part of the world it doesn't need to be taught separately IF all the negative connotation and hiding of homosexuality is removed. part of the problem today and more so in the past is that the gay man is left out of history or his homosexuality removed from the common recount.

we don't really trust parents to teach their kids to do so would be foolish most people are idiots. the fact that parents were resonsobel in the past for education their offspring doesn't mean they still should be. IF anything it highlights how Shit a job the vast majority did how much ignorance and hate was fostered by letting parents do the teaching as opposed to teachers. Blind leading the blind.

Eilzel wrote:Sex education is part of education for a variety of reasons and it is right that being taught about homosexuality is part of that. One main reason is that some parents do shirk responsibility on the matter, Zack here elusively says he would 'teach the facts' to his kids- well we can imagine what his 'facts' might consist of.

Generally speaking, sex education is not as massive a part of the curriculum as subjects like Maths or History- nor should it be, nor does it need to be. But children do need to be aware of certain aspects of life and it is a schools duty to ensure pupils become well rounded and knowledgeable citizens. We have schools provide a hot meal for children to ensure they get at least one proper meal a day in spite of this being a parents duty- since some parents certainly wont support gay children the best way it is therefore a positive step to make sure schools do.

Of course religious zealots wont agree- but they have no problem teaching kids about other cultures/faiths, which is also partly done to support multicultural cohesion.

Spot on Eilzel.
All I am seeing is poor reasoning from two people, one being infantile, the other religious and that either are uncomfortable or dislike homosexuality as their reasons. One offers poor reasoning as a wind up and attempts to deflect away from cohesion and understanding by making poor arguments of what is best taught to children as life skills. Well to me you do not get taught a better life skill than learning to treat people equally and to not judge them based on poor prejudices that they hold.

This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

Of course. None of those people actually went to British schools.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

Of course. None of those people actually went to British schools.

Don be silly most of the the gay people I know went to British Schools
All of the transgender people I know bar one went to Uk schools.

Doesn't alter the fact that transgender is nothing to do with sexuality

Nems wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

Of course. None of those people actually went to British schools.

Don be silly most of the the gay people I know went to British Schools
All of the transgender people I know bar one went to Uk schools.

Doesn't alter the fact that transgender is nothing to do with sexuality

Then what *does* it have to do with?

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

What does religion have to do with education?
Ethnicity?
We teach about them, where people do not understand about them, just as we do with the LGBT.
What is wrong with that Nems?
Nothing, where people have little understanding about something, is it not best to teach about this, so people do not form the wrong views about them?

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

Good afternoon Nems.

Good post.

If I could be guaranteed that these lessons would be given in an impartial way to the kids then I'd give it consideration.But as you say,it's just box ticking.

I suppose in time & as people evolve,they will get passed this attitude of trying to make homosexuality as something different......something wrong.When in fact it's a natural form of human behaviour.

The left wing,politically correct brigade need to bear this in mind when promoting this educational mumbo jumbo & they need to understand that just because someone disagrees with them,that person is not a bigot.

Maybe with a bit more thought & research this idea could be developed into something fair & relevant.

At the moment it is as Nems says.......box ticking

Nems, it doesn't matter that you personally see this as box ticking. Teachers and gay people are human beings, not boxes- do you not see how this can help? I know the red mist of anti-PC rhetoric is clouding but can you not see the benefits of this on a human level?

Eilzel wrote:Nems, it doesn't matter that you personally see this as box ticking. Teachers and gay people are human beings, not boxes- do you not see how this can help? I know the red mist of anti-PC rhetoric is clouding but can you not see the benefits of this on a human level?

Eilzel,do you honestly believe that Nems does not see teachers & gay people as human beings?

Shady wrote:I suppose in time & as people evolve,they will get passed this attitude of trying to make homosexuality as something different......something wrong.When in fact it's a natural form of human behaviour.

The left wing,politically correct brigade need to bear this in mind when promoting this educational mumbo jumbo & they need to understand that just because someone disagrees with them,that person is not a bigot.

Maybe with a bit more thought & research this idea could be developed into something fair & relevant.

At the moment it is as Nems says.......box ticking

Why are you so concerned about this?
I mean the only reason you could be afraid is if you hold some absurd belief this will turn people gay. As otheriwse what is your actual fear?
To teach cohesion is doing what exactly?
Helping people understand some others are actually different in who they are sexually attracted to. So it is not box ticking as for a start, lets see what you know yourself about LGBT.
In fact you would make a very good test case scenario to see what you do actually know.
Do you not agree?
Are you willing to put yourself to the test?

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:I suppose in time & as people evolve,they will get passed this attitude of trying to make homosexuality as something different......something wrong.When in fact it's a natural form of human behaviour.

The left wing,politically correct brigade need to bear this in mind when promoting this educational mumbo jumbo & they need to understand that just because someone disagrees with them,that person is not a bigot.

Maybe with a bit more thought & research this idea could be developed into something fair & relevant.

At the moment it is as Nems says.......box ticking

Why are you so concerned about this?
I mean the only reason you could be afraid is if you hold some absurd belief this will turn people gay. As otheriwse what is your actual fear?
To teach cohesion is doing what exactly?
Helping people understand some others are actually different in who they are sexually attracted to. So it is not box ticking as for a start, lets see what you know yourself about LGBT.
In fact you would make a very good test case scenario to see what you do actually know.
Do you not agree?
Are you willing to put yourself to the test?

Have you tried masturbation? That may help.

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why are you so concerned about this?
I mean the only reason you could be afraid is if you hold some absurd belief this will turn people gay. As otheriwse what is your actual fear?
To teach cohesion is doing what exactly?
Helping people understand some others are actually different in who they are sexually attracted to. So it is not box ticking as for a start, lets see what you know yourself about LGBT.
In fact you would make a very good test case scenario to see what you do actually know.
Do you not agree?
Are you willing to put yourself to the test?

Have you tried masturbation? That may help.

So you basically want to wimp out of the challenge and thus have utterly no point to make.


Look, if you want to act like a child, you will be treated as such and I have no problem taking someone of your views to task. Its not much of a challenge mind, but I am very happy to treat you with the same respect you give to me or others.
You are wlecome here to debate, if you want to, but nobody is being nasty to you and yet you choose to still act like an infant.
I suggest you start to grow up and debate the points or jog the fuck on.
Either way I am not concerned Shady.

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:

Have you tried masturbation? That may help.

So you basically want to wimp out of the challenge and thus have utterly no point to make.


Look, if you want to act like a child, you will be treated as such and I have no problem taking someone of your views to task. Its not much of a challenge mind, but I am very happy to treat you with the same respect you give to me or others.
You are wlecome here to debate, if you want to, but nobody is being nasty to you and yet you choose to still act like an infant.
I suggest you start to grow up and debate the points or jog the fuck on.
Either way I am not concerned Shady.

Go on,give it a try.

Tension is a funny old thing & affects the way we think.

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So you basically want to wimp out of the challenge and thus have utterly no point to make.


Look, if you want to act like a child, you will be treated as such and I have no problem taking someone of your views to task. Its not much of a challenge mind, but I am very happy to treat you with the same respect you give to me or others.
You are wlecome here to debate, if you want to, but nobody is being nasty to you and yet you choose to still act like an infant.
I suggest you start to grow up and debate the points or jog the fuck on.
Either way I am not concerned Shady.

Go on,give it a try.

Tension is a funny old thing & affects the way we think.

It requires no effort when dealing with an adult with the mentality of a child.
As seen what have you come back with?
What is more you still shy away from taking on the test yourself.
The fact is shady I know it is all a game to you, which is why I am happy to finish your game, but not to how you wished for it to pan out.

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:

Go on,give it a try.

Tension is a funny old thing & affects the way we think.

It requires no effort when dealing with an adult with the mentality of a child.
As seen what have you come back with?
What is more you still shy away from taking on the test yourself.
The fact is shady I know it is all a game to you, which is why I am happy to finish your game, but not to how you wished for it to pan out.

Think I'm a bit passed taking school girl magazine tests.....But why don't you try one on yourself & post the results.

We'd all be really interested to see them

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

It requires no effort when dealing with an adult with the mentality of a child.
As seen what have you come back with?
What is more you still shy away from taking on the test yourself.
The fact is shady I know it is all a game to you, which is why I am happy to finish your game, but not to how you wished for it to pan out.

Think I'm a bit passed taking school girl magazine tests.....But why don't you try one on yourself & post the results.

We'd all be really interested to see them

You just proved you failed the test if that is how you look upon the LGBT community.
Thanks Shady you have just proven why more than anything it is needed in schools so that more people do not grow up in ignorance of LGBT as just proven by yourself.

Much easier than I thought to prove how valid and needed this is in schools.

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:

Think I'm a bit passed taking school girl magazine tests.....But why don't you try one on yourself & post the results.

We'd all be really interested to see them

You just proved you failed the test if that is how you look upon the LGBT community.
Thanks Shady you have just proven why more than anything it is needed in schools so that more people do not grow up in ignorance of LGBT as just proven by yourself.

Much easier than I thought to prove how valid and needed this is in schools.

I agree with you.

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

What does religion have to do with education?
Ethnicity?
We teach about them, where people do not understand about them, just as we do with the LGBT.
What is wrong with that Nems?
Nothing, where people have little understanding about something, is it not best to teach about this, so people do not form the wrong views about them?

What is the wrong view?
Homosexual and transsexual are two completely different things. They are two completely separate things.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:

Don be silly most of the the gay people I know went to British Schools
All of the transgender people I know bar one went to Uk schools.

Doesn't alter the fact that transgender is nothing to do with sexuality

Then what *does* it have to do with?

Lets flip that round and you can tell me why and how feeling that you are in the wrong body is the same as wanting to have sex with someone of the same gender as yourself?

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

What does religion have to do with education?
Ethnicity?
We teach about them, where people do not understand about them, just as we do with the LGBT.
What is wrong with that Nems?
Nothing, where people have little understanding about something, is it not best to teach about this, so people do not form the wrong views about them?

What is the wrong view?
Homosexual and transsexual are two completely different things. They are two completely separate things.

The wrong view is not understanding either is it not?
Again why are you so against children understanding other children who will be different to them?

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You just proved you failed the test if that is how you look upon the LGBT community.
Thanks Shady you have just proven why more than anything it is needed in schools so that more people do not grow up in ignorance of LGBT as just proven by yourself.

Much easier than I thought to prove how valid and needed this is in schools.

I agree with you.

Glad you admit that you wasted everyone's time.

Thank you shady

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:

What is the wrong view?
Homosexual and transsexual are two completely different things. They are two completely separate things.

The wrong view is not understanding either is it not?
Again why are you so against children understanding other children who will be different to them?

Im not against children understanding etc

I object to the LGB T lump together which is what I said

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

The wrong view is not understanding either is it not?
Again why are you so against children understanding other children who will be different to them?

Im not against children understanding etc

I object to the LGB  T lump together which is what I said

How else do you propose they tackle the subject if not by classifying as a group?
I do understand very well Transgender is very much set apart as many are actually straight, but again , where do you wish to categorize this? Do you want this to be separate altogether?

So you do not think it is PC after all, your only beef is lumping them together under one group, which is different from your first post?

Sorry, so what Nems, the issue here is to teach about the differences, and placing a group of people that have been made an outcast group and were actually welcomed by the homosexual community, seems fitting that this collection of groups of people outcast by society, should have a subject that covers them all do you not think?
I fail to see what if any point you are trying to make here other than the T be dropped from LGBT and Transgender separated.

The whole point would be about understanding, which this would actually cover all of this. It is not about placing labels, but in fact understanding the differences and acceptance.

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:This sort of thing always looks like box ticking to me Im afraid, to show how right on and PC we are as a nation.
Falls at the first hurdle for me.
LGBT? What does transgender have to do with sex education? Lump em all in together and tick the box.

What does religion have to do with education?
Ethnicity?
We teach about them, where people do not understand about them, just as we do with the LGBT.
What is wrong with that Nems?
Nothing, where people have little understanding about something, is it not best to teach about this, so people do not form the wrong views about them?

What is the wrong view?
Homosexual and transsexual are two completely different things. They are two completely separate things.

Yes they are.

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

The wrong view is not understanding either is it not?
Again why are you so against children understanding other children who will be different to them?

Im not against children understanding etc

I object to the LGB  T lump together which is what I said

Watch out Nems because this nutjob Brasidas was trying to get me to take some sort of test earlier.I don't know to what end but it was all a bit creepy.

Make sure you don't give her your home address.

Eilzel wrote:Nems, it doesn't matter that you personally see this as box ticking. Teachers and gay people are human beings, not boxes- do you not see how this can help? I know the red mist of anti-PC rhetoric is clouding but can you not see the benefits of this on a human level?

Nems?

Shady wrote:

Nems wrote:

Im not against children understanding etc

I object to the LGB  T lump together which is what I said

Watch out Nems because this nutjob Brasidas was trying to get me to take some sort of test earlier.I don't know to what end but it was all a bit creepy.

Make sure you don't give her your home address.

So I was right, you are only here to shit stir, even your comment yesterday claiming I was a girl, shows your sexist views to thinking it is an insult to call someone a girl as much as it would be to call someone gay. It is a very infantile view to do that because basically you think to call someone a girl is an insult thus inferring that there is either something inferior or wrong about being female, just as would be the same when someone calls someone gay.
I suggest you grow up Shady as you are going to find on here little support for your childish actions.
The point of the test was to test your knowledge on what you do know about LGBT.
You instead have decided to use this as some means to take the piss about homosexuality your whole intention from the start.

Like I say, learn to grow up, its about time someone of your age has done so by now, because as seen your childish antics have fallen as flat as a pancake.

Eilzel wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Nems, it doesn't matter that you personally see this as box ticking. Teachers and gay people are human beings, not boxes- do you not see how this can help? I know the red mist of anti-PC rhetoric is clouding but can you not see the benefits of this on a human level?

Nems?

I havent got a red mist over any thing

The point I made is that the two things are different. Lumping it all in together is ignorant and lazy and to me
smacks of box ticking and labelling.
Boy do I hate labelling. Why dos everybody have to be put in a category?

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Nems?

I havent got a red mist over any thing

The point I made is that the two things are different. Lumping it all in together is ignorant and lazy and to me
smacks of box ticking and labelling.
Boy do I hate  labelling. Why dos everybody have to be put in a category?

Good morning Nems.

Are you well?

Nems wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Nems?

I havent got a red mist over any thing

The point I made is that the two things are different. Lumping it all in together is ignorant and lazy and to me
smacks of box ticking and labelling.
Boy do I hate  labelling. Why dos everybody have to be put in a category?

Morning nems

Okay, how does a a girl trapped inside the body of a boy have other boys or girls understand she is a girl attracted to boys as a girl and not as a homosexual then Nems?
They are very much connected with a misunderstanding that people have.
This is why as a subject it should be taught together, which I fewll you are missing the point on, because such a person needs both boys and girls to understand they are a girl, surely not?

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:

Watch out Nems because this nutjob Brasidas was trying to get me to take some sort of test earlier.I don't know to what end but it was all a bit creepy.

Make sure you don't give her your home address.

So I was right, you are only here to shit stir, even your comment yesterday claiming I was a girl, shows your sexist views to thinking it is an insult to call someone a girl as much as it would be to call someone gay. It is a very infantile view to do that because basically you think to call someone a girl is an insult thus inferring that there is either something inferior or wrong about being female, just as would be the same when someone calls someone gay.
I suggest you grow up Shady as you are going to find on here little support for your childish actions.
The point of the test was to test your knowledge on what you do know about LGBT.
You instead have decided to use this as some means to take the piss about homosexuality your whole intention from the start.

Like I say, learn to grow up, its about time someone of your age has done so by now, because as seen your childish antics have fallen as flat as a pancake.

Whatever my posting style,I still come out with more sense than you will ever understand or possess.

Do you have a brother called Didge?

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So I was right, you are only here to shit stir, even your comment yesterday claiming I was a girl, shows your sexist views to thinking it is an insult to call someone a girl as much as it would be to call someone gay. It is a very infantile view to do that because basically you think to call someone a girl is an insult thus inferring that there is either something inferior or wrong about being female, just as would be the same when someone calls someone gay.
I suggest you grow up Shady as you are going to find on here little support for your childish actions.
The point of the test was to test your knowledge on what you do know about LGBT.
You instead have decided to use this as some means to take the piss about homosexuality your whole intention from the start.

Like I say, learn to grow up, its about time someone of your age has done so by now, because as seen your childish antics have fallen as flat as a pancake.

Whatever my posting style,I still come out with more sense than you will ever understand or possess.

Do you have a brother called Didge?

That is subjective based on your own poor views.
I have no brother or anyone called Didge, as it is a pseudo name of someone I know.
Why are you so interested in my personal life?
Is your own that dull and boring?

Again you are now not eveing talking about the issues on the thread furthering proving you are nothing more than a troll.
Now you can either return back to the points of the thread and also explain what you understand about LGBT, or you can have me continue to show up your infantile behaviour Shady.

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:

What is the wrong view?
Homosexual and transsexual are two completely different things. They are two completely separate things.

The wrong view is not understanding either is it not?
Again why are you so against children understanding other children who will be different to them?

Im not against children understanding etc

I object to the LGB  T lump together which is what I said

Then you'll have to take it up with them ... but I bet they'd say something like "It's been us lumped together into the same group by bigots for so long that we decided we might as well band together for strength in numbers"?

Brasidas wrote:

Shady wrote:

Whatever my posting style,I still come out with more sense than you will ever understand or possess.

Do you have a brother called Didge?

That is subjective based on your own poor views.
I have no brother or anyone called Didge, as it is a pseudo name of someone I know.
Why are you so interested in my personal life?
Is your own that dull and boring?

Again you are now not eveing talking about the issues on the thread furthering proving you are nothing more than a troll.
Now you can either return back to the points of the thread and also explain what you understand about LGBT, or you can have me continue to show up your infantile behaviour Shady.

Oh dear,look at the time.......08:21hrs.

I come on line & there you are jumping on my posts faster than the speed of light.

So I take it that you've been sitting there all night......fingers anxiously poised just above the keyboard.Waiting for me to post.

What a messed up life you must have.

Shady wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That is subjective based on your own poor views.
I have no brother or anyone called Didge, as it is a pseudo name of someone I know.
Why are you so interested in my personal life?
Is your own that dull and boring?

Again you are now not eveing talking about the issues on the thread furthering proving you are nothing more than a troll.
Now you can either return back to the points of the thread and also explain what you understand about LGBT, or you can have me continue to show up your infantile behaviour Shady.

Oh dear,look at the time.......08:21hrs.

I come on line & there you are jumping on my posts faster than the speed of light.

So I take it that you've been sitting there all night......fingers anxiously poised just above the keyboard.Waiting for me to post.

What a messed up life you must have.

Again yet further proof of your immaturity.
I am at work and I look in on threads I wish to respond to.
Seems you suffer from some severe case of paranoia Shady.
As I say, you just keep proving you have no intention to come here and debate, you just want to cause friction between posters.
That suggests a dull and boring life that you must lead.
So lets see if you can show some maturity and actually address the points on the thread or are you going to further prove me right again.
Lets see if you can be adult enough to reply with some decency.

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:

I havent got a red mist over any thing

The point I made is that the two things are different. Lumping it all in together is ignorant and lazy and to me
smacks of box ticking and labelling.
Boy do I hate  labelling. Why dos everybody have to be put in a category?

Morning nems

Okay, how does a a girl trapped inside the body of a boy have other boys or girls understand she is a girl attracted to boys as a girl and not as a homosexual then Nems?
They are very much connected with a misunderstanding that people have.
This is why as a subject it should be taught together, which I fewll you are missing the point on, because such a person needs both boys and girls to understand they are a girl, surely not?

Posted again for Nems, so we can get this debate back on track, where clearly shady is attempting to derail this thread with his immaturity.

Nems, however much you dislike the LGBT grouping, your missing the core point here that this would help LGB and T children- it is detrimental to go on about one aspect of a term to the point you condemn a whole idea designed to help people.

Sorry am I missing something?

I thought nems said, more or less, that transgenders aren't the same as homosexuals?

eddie wrote:Sorry am I missing something?

I thought nems said, more or less, that transgenders aren't the same as homosexuals?

That is not how I am reading things Eddie.
Her views is this is PC.
PClaiming placing all together is wrong, which misses the whole point.
Some transgenders are in fact homosexual, where they are a boy trapped inside the body of a girl and are attracted to men.
It is not as simple as being made out by Nems.
To me Nems wants to seperate all this and to what end?
Is the view here to teach in reagrds to all groups?
What difference does it make to have as one category, as again:
How does a a girl trapped inside the body of a boy have other boys or girls understand she is a girl attracted to boys as a girl and not as a homosexual then Nems?
They are very much connected with a misunderstanding that people have.
This is why as a subject it should be taught together, which I fewll you are missing the point on, because such a person needs both boys and girls to understand they are a girl, surely not?

Agreed didge.

Eds, the problem is Nems came in from the off claiming this is a bad idea (falls at the first hurdle). There was no positive, or if there is she chose not to mention it.

This is a good move however, as you, me, didge, Irn and others recognized. For Nems it was just another stick with which to beat Political Correctness (which is of course for many a far worse thing than homophobia right?...).

Eilzel wrote:Agreed didge.

Eds, the problem is Nems came in from the off claiming this is a bad idea (falls at the first hurdle). There was no positive, or if there is she chose not to mention it.

This is a good move however, as you, me, didge, Irn and others recognized. For Nems it was just another stick with which to beat Political Correctness (which is of course for many a far worse thing than homophobia right?...).

Eaxctly Eilzel

Here is how to weigh this up.

PC is at worst an inconvenience to some. Where they choose to make it an inconvenience to themselves of those who moan that is, as it does not effect others in anyway at all.

Discrmination and prejudice at its worst leads to murder and sucide.

Its a no brainer comparrison.

Right ok well I'll,have to see what she replies then because I actually thought she was just saying that homosexuals and transgenders are not the same - which of course they're not.

I like this idea, I hate labels as much as anyone, and I hate PC but I really have a soft spot for people who are just struggling to be themselves in a world that doesn't always understand them.
Transgenders are widely misunderstood.
I read the Well Of Lonliness (one of the very first books of its kind if I recall?) when I was really young and I've never, ever forgotten the struggle of the main character

Eds just re-read Nem's original post- zero positives, only negatives. According to that post there is nothing of worth in the idea.

eddie wrote:Right ok well I'll,have to see what she replies then because I actually thought she was just saying that homosexuals and transgenders are not the same - which of course they're not.

I like this idea, I hate labels as much as anyone, and I hate PC but I really have a soft spot for people who are just struggling to be themselves in a world that doesn't always understand them.
Transgenders are widely misunderstood.
I read the Well Of Lonliness (one of the very first books of its kind if I recall?) when I was really young and I've never, ever forgotten the struggle of the main character

The problem is Eddie there is nothing wrong with Political correctness. I have been through this before and in some cases people confuse something as PC, when it is not PC.


political correctness
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Sorry but nobody has yet argued against this with me and recently debated this before. To argue against PC is to allow discrmination and allow it to be a normality, which it should never be., As seen PC is there to stop issues, so I fail to see how anyone can be against PC. If they are, then they are for discrmination.
It is as simple as that Eddie. Where people attempt to be politically correct and in fact excludes, marginalizes, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, then it is not PC and actually conflicts with PC itself. That is why PC is never wrong when it does not conflict.


So lets look at LGBT.

Are they excluded, marginalized, and are 4 groups of people who are socially disadvantaged and discriminated against?

Yes

So how is PC wrong here?
Does it discrminate against other people?
No
Does it effect other people personally?
No
Do religious views supercede the well being of others and their equality?
No, as they are based on no scientific evidence.

So please explain to me how and why you would be against PC, when it only helps?
It is 100% right and 100% needed to dispell prejudice against each group.

Again there is no argument to be made against PC here.

Yes didge, in the main, PC is okay, as it's not okay to go around randomly insulting people due to differences.....BUT! it can also go extremely OTT and actually make people too uncomfortable to say what they really feel!

eddie wrote:Yes didge, in the main, PC is okay, as it's not okay to go around randomly insulting people due to differences.....BUT! it can also go extremely OTT and actually make people too uncomfortable to say what they really feel!

But is it PC when it is extreme?
The fact is you will find when in these cases it is not PC Eddie, as like I say it contradicts PC itself it does indeed end up discriminating against others:

political correctness
noun
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.



For example where there have been cases of councils claiming to go against something Christmas, that would not be PC, as it would conflict with PC, as it is an action that discriminates against others.
Hence when something is done that ends up discriminating against others, it is never PC .
That is why I have said that PC cannot be wrong when it does not conflict