Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Freeing one's child from the shackles of gender
Sometimes I fear that parental rights opponents may have a point.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/05/freeing-ones-child-from-the-shackles-of-gender.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I admit I think this is nutty, which is not to say that some of the ways girl babies and boy babies are treated differently are always helpful.
Posted by: David Nickol | May 25, 2011 9:15:04 AM
What's interesting is that the danger is that OTHERS will hurt the child because the parents made an unusual choice. I bet that most very young children will not bully Storm until their parents teach them to. Perhaps this reveals a different aspect of the problem, and the one we should REALLY worry about.
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | May 25, 2011 9:32:49 AM
I agree with Sean. It's sick that the article seems to blame the parents for the fact that *other* parents will be unable to rear their children appropriately in a way that encourages tolerance and respect.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 25, 2011 11:12:18 AM
I think they are setting their children up for failure and major problems in the future. But the real problem in the future will be, and already is, parents who want to raise their children as good Catholics. Public schools already impose an alien moral agenda on those children and ignore parental rights. Likewise there are concerted attacks on Christian homeschooling parents. If a Christian parent in California objects to the local school indoctrinating his child about homosexuality...well we see how limited tolerance and respect can be.
Posted by: Fr. J | May 25, 2011 5:49:20 PM
"indoctrinating about homosexuality". What do you mean by that? teaching children to be tolerant, or to be homosexual?
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | May 25, 2011 6:07:10 PM
What does tolerance mean? For most homosexuals it means saying that homosexuality is a wonderful gift. A Catholic cannot say that. Our religious beliefs are not tolerated. And I have heard of the term "queering" which means to encourage children to consider homosexuality. Read the following article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/25/gender-diversity-lesson-california-school-riles-critics/
Posted by: Fr. J | May 25, 2011 8:12:10 PM
Fr. J,
Fox News has significantly damaged its own ethos that, in general, I'm not going to take the effort to click through to anything they have to say anymore.
"I think Catholic parents are setting their children up for failure and major problems in the future. But the real problem in the future will be, and already is, parents who want to raise their children as genderless. Public schools already impose an alien moral agenda on those children and ignore parental rights. Likewise there are concerted attacks on genderless homeschooling parents. If a anti-gender parent in California objects to the local school indoctrinating his child about gender...well we see how limited tolerance and respect can be."
Equally as convincing as what you wrote.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 26, 2011 1:35:59 AM
Andrew, in other words you will not consider any evidence that is contrary to your own opinion. Even if it is true you won't look at it. How open minded. This is why liberals lose debates. Conservatives cannot escape hearing your side and so we have to deal with it. Liberals pretend there is no other side and when confronted with contradictory evidence resort to denial or attacks. Closing your eyes won't make the truth go away.
In fact in California you could easily raise your child as genderless and would probably be given an award. But if you are Catholic and want to opt your child out of sexual indoctrination...we both know how that would play out don't we?
Posted by: Fr. J | May 26, 2011 11:40:21 AM
Fr. J, since I have faith that you have better reading comprehension than you just demonstrated, I'm left to assume that you're deliberately arguing against a strawman for some reason.
As I'm sure a man of your experience is aware, there are far more available writings than anyone will ever have time to read, and so we limit what we take the time to peruse to those sources which have established themselves as credible.
Almost everything I read is opposed to my own opinions to one degree or another, whether it's Mirror of Justice or Augustine, Volokh or Nietzsche, Camp4U or Schopenhauer, Mark Bennett or Matt Ridley. However, there are certain sources that just aren't worth the time investment: Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, and people who won't even sign their names to their writing.
By the way, you're obviously correct: everyone's been very supportive of the family in the story. They've got it easy.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 26, 2011 1:53:47 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought California actually had a large (in percentage terms), growing, and devout Catholic population. I appreciate that this doesn't dissolve your disagreement with public school sex ed and so on, but if the Catholic community is under threat in California it doesn't appear to have been a terribly effective threat.
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | May 26, 2011 1:59:57 PM
Andrew, you didn't want to read it because it is Foxnews not because you don't have time.
Paul, after Prop 8 there were church arsons and assaults on Christians in the street. Hand out Catholic tracts in the Castro district and see how you are treated.
Posted by: Fr. J | May 26, 2011 5:22:31 PM
Not from Fox:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/absurd-and-corrupt-at-once
Posted by: Fr. J | May 26, 2011 5:24:54 PM
Fr. J, do you have large parts of your day where you sit around doing nothing? Every bit of time spent has an opportunity cost. I'm not going to waste much more on Fox News, especially Fox News articles linked to by anonymous internet people.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 26, 2011 8:20:16 PM
Re the Crisis article: horribly argued, and a failure to cite that would have earned it a D even in 6th grade. What was the point of posting it?
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 26, 2011 8:25:11 PM
Andrew, so instead of grappling with what was said you again attack me and then attack the article. As a lawyer if you can't win the argument then you try to destroy your opponent. So I guess you can't win the argument. I give you a F.
This is why liberals lose debates. They won't even bother to discover what conservatives say. Therefore they can't respond intelligently. If you are going to be a lawyer you had better be willing to look at the other side of an argument so that you can attempt to refute it. Conservatives often hear only the one side. I remember back in college debating, in class, a professor. He was attempting to indoctrinate rather then educate. I won, but he punished me with a lower grade. He even admitted it and told me I could do nothing about it. He was right, I could do nothing about it. I filed the experience, and others like it, away in the back of my mind. Liberals can be vindictive, hence my being anonymous.
Posted by: Fr. J | May 27, 2011 12:27:25 PM
I didn't respond to the points? I asked you what the point was. You think it's relevant, bu you haven't justified that relevance. Until that justification is made, I see no reason to provide a detailed critique of every poorly written article on the Internet. What point that you've made do you feel I haven't adequately responded to?
And those who are too cowardly to sign their names to things will always find it easy to make unsupported claims about the vindictiveness of the evil other side. Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 27, 2011 1:45:12 PM
It's unfortunate that this thread has run off into the ditch. The original topic was more interesting. Anyway: whatever harm this child (Storm) comes to, it will not be because of the parent's choice as much as because of the reaction of the parents of other children.
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | May 27, 2011 4:01:04 PM
Sean,
"Anyway: whatever harm this child (Storm) comes to, it will not be because of the parent's choice as much as because of the reaction of the parents of other children."
I completely agree. It saddens me to think that there are many people who will ostracize the child by saying "it's unfortunate your parents made you so easy to ostracize."
Posted by: Andrew MacKie-Mason | May 27, 2011 5:00:53 PM
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
