Beautifully said Kim thanks a ton By the way my kid sister is left handed and in the 60s the school system tried to beat it out of her as they considered it a choice.
Man this regression thing is starting to piss me off
It is what it is... I see a definite attempt to vilify a group that is already persecuted regularly. You see my complaint as frivolous. Or you say his intent is innocent. We disagree.
There should be meetings on how children can be taught that sexuality and in fact human sexual and or naturally ocurring gender differences are not something to be feared. Not something to be held up as shameful. Not something to politicize.
It is ignorance that leads to fear, hatred and violence toward minority groups. McVety is wittingly or unwittingly pointing out a minority group as something to be ashamed of...something to be feared...something we should protect our children from. When in fact transgendered people are good responsible parents, grandparents and citizens. They are sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles and so on and so forth. To have education on transgendered issues pulled on the basis of "confusing" children...is in fact an insult to a harmless group of people...who's only goal is their own contentment.
Both ads seem to have the intent of scaring parents. That a certain minority group, the transgendered, is something to be kept quiet about. Somehow the boogie man. Somehow going to turn little Johnny into little Jane. These ideas are in fact crazy. People are , or, are not gay, transgendered, or whatever. These conditions are not created by school text books.
My intent is to expose the truth. Truth is Mr. McVety is spreading misinformation about the transgendered. Telling parents that this must be avoided. That knowing about it will corrupt or confuse. When really, not knowing about it is the real problem. Since it causes ignorance, hate and violence toward this group of people.
Promoting fear against a group that is in fact harmless... is reprehensible. Especially from a Christian.
However, we dont disagree that much. For instance, there is no question that the transgendered deserve our respect and understanding, and that they have been and are still, persecuted. There is also no question that McVety is an extremist hateful nutjob (I have never had direct exposure to McVety except this ad, but that is the consensus view and I dont dispute it).
But this ad in itself raises some important policy points, which deserves some exposure and a public debate. And where we disagree is where you want to shut the debate down and scream "hater" at someone raising a point of view you dont share. I can readily accept that McVety himself is a hater, but that is not the point: the ad does not in itself promote hate.
The view that the McGuinty sex ed curriculum was rather ambitious for very young minds is widely shared. And it's not a hateful view - most dont want their 6 year old kids to hear about any kind of sex from their teachers.
I admit not knowing enough to prescribe how exactly these topics should be discussed with children, but I appreciate the fact that there is a public debate around it. When you try to suppress any opposing view point, even stupid ones, as being essentially criminal, we are all deprived of this debate and we are all poorer for it.
I apologize if my previous comment was a bit salty.
Then he should talk about sex alone and not center out a specific group. I agree that kids should be taught at a certain age determined by consensus. My problem, is this guy is using a specific group to point out why you should not teach kids at a certain age. That this could confuse and influence children in a negative way. My point is, leave the transgendered out of it. If you are concerned about timing of sexual eduacation.Leave it at that. Do not point to a group and say this group might cause some sort of negative influence... when in fact kids need to be taught that the transgendered are generally harmless. Not the boogie man or woman. Keeping kids ignorant causes bullying imo. I have no problem with this group saying kids should be taught sexual education at a later date. Not a radical view. Just dont point to groups and say...they could be a bad influence. When the opposite could also be true. When you center ouot a group as something that might confuse or corrupt kids...it is borderline hate. It is an attempt as telling parents that transgendered people are scary. Just burns my butt when minority groups are centered out as being a type of villain to avoid. When the real villains are people like this who take a subject like sex education and inject prejudice toward a specific group that does not deserve the negative spotlight.
Beautifully said Kim thanks a ton By the way my kid sister is left handed and in the 60s the school system tried to beat it out of her as they considered it a choice.
ReplyDeleteMan this regression thing is starting to piss me off
np... pretty sure brown eyed people are next... already ok to kick red heads apparently.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis can't be spun 180.
ReplyDeleteIt is what it is... I see a definite attempt to vilify a group that is already persecuted regularly. You see my complaint as frivolous. Or you say his intent is innocent. We disagree.
There should be meetings on how children can be taught that sexuality and in fact human sexual and or naturally ocurring gender differences are not something to be feared. Not something to be held up as shameful. Not something to politicize.
It is ignorance that leads to fear, hatred and violence toward minority groups. McVety is wittingly or unwittingly pointing out a minority group as something to be ashamed of...something to be feared...something we should protect our children from. When in fact transgendered people are good responsible parents, grandparents and citizens. They are sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles and so on and so forth. To have education on transgendered issues pulled on the basis of "confusing" children...is in fact an insult to a harmless group of people...who's only goal is their own contentment.
Both ads seem to have the intent of scaring parents. That a certain minority group, the transgendered, is something to be kept quiet about. Somehow the boogie man. Somehow going to turn little Johnny into little Jane. These ideas are in fact crazy. People are , or, are not gay, transgendered, or whatever. These conditions are not created by school text books.
My intent is to expose the truth. Truth is Mr. McVety is spreading misinformation about the transgendered. Telling parents that this must be avoided. That knowing about it will corrupt or confuse. When really, not knowing about it is the real problem. Since it causes ignorance, hate and violence toward this group of people.
Promoting fear against a group that is in fact harmless... is reprehensible. Especially from a Christian.
we agree to disagree.
Kim May.
Kim:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful response.
However, we dont disagree that much. For instance, there is no question that the transgendered deserve our respect and understanding, and that they have been and are still, persecuted. There is also no question that McVety is an extremist hateful nutjob (I have never had direct exposure to McVety except this ad, but that is the consensus view and I dont dispute it).
But this ad in itself raises some important policy points, which deserves some exposure and a public debate. And where we disagree is where you want to shut the debate down and scream "hater" at someone raising a point of view you dont share. I can readily accept that McVety himself is a hater, but that is not the point: the ad does not in itself promote hate.
The view that the McGuinty sex ed curriculum was rather ambitious for very young minds is widely shared. And it's not a hateful view - most dont want their 6 year old kids to hear about any kind of sex from their teachers.
I admit not knowing enough to prescribe how exactly these topics should be discussed with children, but I appreciate the fact that there is a public debate around it. When you try to suppress any opposing view point, even stupid ones, as being essentially criminal, we are all deprived of this debate and we are all poorer for it.
I apologize if my previous comment was a bit salty.
Regards.
Then he should talk about sex alone and not center out a specific group. I agree that kids should be taught at a certain age determined by consensus. My problem, is this guy is using a specific group to point out why you should not teach kids at a certain age. That this could confuse and influence children in a negative way. My point is, leave the transgendered out of it. If you are concerned about timing of sexual eduacation.Leave it at that. Do not point to a group and say this group might cause some sort of negative influence... when in fact kids need to be taught that the transgendered are generally harmless. Not the boogie man or woman. Keeping kids ignorant causes bullying imo.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with this group saying kids should be taught sexual education at a later date. Not a radical view. Just dont point to groups and say...they could be a bad influence. When the opposite could also be true.
When you center ouot a group as something that might confuse or corrupt kids...it is borderline hate. It is an attempt as telling parents that transgendered people are scary.
Just burns my butt when minority groups are centered out as being a type of villain to avoid. When the real villains are people like this who take a subject like sex education and inject prejudice toward a specific group that does not deserve the negative spotlight.
Kim