Can't even begin to come up with a title for this oneFollow

Ah yes. The "if it's wrong for race, it's wrong for everything" argument. So we should eliminate weight classes for wrestling then? Cause that's discrimination, right? How about we eliminate all entry requirements for everything? No more tryouts cause that would be unfair to those who aren't very good at things. Would make professional sports interesting at least. And I suppose we'd crash more rockets into Mars or something, but who needs pesky requirements, or checking to see if someone is physically or mentally capable of doing whatever it is we're asking them to do before having them do it.

I suppose you'd be fine with just anyone doing brain surgery on a loved one, cause it would be just like not allowing black people to become doctors if we placed any requirements at all on said profession. After all, doctors make lots of money, so clearly discriminating against those who wish to work in the profession is always wrong. Right?

You see how rapidly stupid your argument becomes? How about instead of making a lame equivalence to race, you instead actually argue the case in front of us?

Edited, Jan 6th 2015 1:03pm by gbaji

Ah yes. The "if it's wrong for race, it's wrong for everything" argument. So we should eliminate weight classes for wrestling then? Cause that's discrimination, right? How about we eliminate all entry requirements for everything? No more tryouts cause that would be unfair to those who aren't very good at things. Would make professional sports interesting at least.

Work with me for a minute. Let's dismiss your whole "Harrison Bergeron.."people will marry their dogs!" thing for a minute, because it's silly and useless and focus on your examples.

So we should eliminate weight classes for wrestling then?

And.

No more tryouts cause that would be unfair to those who aren't very good at things. Would make professional sports interesting at least.

How do these coexist in your tiny little mind as examples of the same "problem"? Weight classes in wrestling are exactly the opposite of "we shouldn't limit sports based on physical characteristics". Polar opposites.

How can you possibly be this stupid? That's not a rhetorical question, how is it even possible? Your logic is 40 sigmas away from Earnest goes to camp in the direction of making any sense. It's fucking astonishing.

You honestly don't see it? You have a remarkable inability to see that two things can be similar without being identical. For example. If I were listing off a couple different types of food dishes, I might list both Spaghetti and Roast Beef. Yet, shockingly, Roast Beef is not Spaghetti. Wrapped your brain about this concept yet?

Similarly, I've listed two things in which there are requirements. They are not identical requirements, but in both cases, we accept that you don't get to play in a given class/level unless you meet the requirements. In professional baseball (for example) you must try out and be good enough to play at that level. Similarly, you don't get to wrestle in a given weight class, unless you are in that weight class (and there are also levels as well).

The point, which apparently sailed right over your pea brain, is that in society we accept a whole host of different requirements for all sorts of different things. And no one runs around claiming unfair discrimination every single time. If you want to call something unfair discrimination, and equate it to racial discrimination, you need to do more than simply declare it to be so. You need to show that they are similar in some way. And you need to show that it's *not* like all the other forms of discrimination that we accept and allow in our society every single day.

You have failed to do that. Hence, my point. Determining who can play on a given sports team based on physical characteristics (like se.x) is closer to discriminating based on physical ability than on race. The entire reasoning, in fact, is that if boys and girls played on the same teams, most of the girls would never get to play because the boys would be better players in any given age range (assuming we're talking about school sports here). Fair or not, there are physical differences based on se.x, and those differences do affect things like sports.

It's not the same as saying the black male can't play with the white males Smash. Suggesting it is requires a special kind of nuttiness.



It's always funny how you project your own inability to understand simple concepts on those around you. Maybe take a look in the mirror?

But there are degrees, and points of maturity that you wait for, right?



I'm assuming that you wouldn't allow a 5 year old to properly assess the consequences and risks of playing on the freeway though? My point is that there are issues, and age ranges, where you as the parent simply have to set "the rules". Right? No matter how much your 5 year old is sure he'll be fine playing in traffic, you're not going to let him do so. No matter how sure he is that he doesn't need to eat any dinner, you still require him to do so. No matter how convinced he is that he doesn't need a bed time, you know better.

Because you are the parent. That's your job. Your child doesn't know any better. You must teach him. And yes, you must teach him how to make good decisions for himself also. But you can't let him make those decisions until you are sure he's mature and capable enough to make them. And guess what? A 5 year old is no more capable of deciding that his gender identity isn't aligned with his se.x than he is at deciding that it's safe to play in traffic.



Bit of a stretch to go from reminding a boy that he's a boy and not a girl to hate crime. Don't you think? I don't know any parents who've done this because they don't care about their children and it's kinda shocking that you'd think so. Most parents manage to noodle out how to reinforce social gender norms without hating their children. Usually it's as simple as making a distinction between play time with sisters clothes on, and public attire. It's really not that hard. Again, because they are the parents and they make these kind of decisions all the time.




You're right. It's not black and white. Which means there's a whole range of grey in between hate crimes and good parenting.



Stop insisting that because I'm not 100% one direction I must be 100% the other. It's kinda offensive. Some of us manage to live in an area in between anarchy and authoritarianism.

Edited, Jan 6th 2015 3:38pm by gbaji

Easier said than done. Everyone naturally has expectations on how people should behave and that applies more so with our children. We want them to share our hobbies, mimic our careers, marry someone we approve, etc.


1. They are far from being a "hate crime", because there is no crime or hate involved.
2. As stated above, treating a boy as a boy does not equate to not caring

You say this, yet the first part of your post is a list of "societal norms". How do you teach children to be "polite"? What is polite? Politeness varies by culture and society. Saying "thank you" for some is sufficient, while others believe "sir/ma'am" is mandatory. Some parents behave as friends with their children. As with my first point, it's easier said than done.

What if they want to view the world as black and white? By your own definition, wouldn't you be committing a "hate crime" for not accepting their view point?

You honestly don't see it?

Your mistake? I did, that's why I pointed it out. Everyone saw it. Your wild eyed nonsensical explanation that followed I couldn't finish reading because of laughing too hard. Let me try to parse some of it, though:

The entire reasoning, in fact, is that if boys and girls played on the same teams, most of the girls would never get to play because the boys would be better players in any given age range (assuming we're talking about school sports here). Fair or not, there are physical differences based on se.x, and those differences do affect things like sports.

I see. Explain how that has to do with weight classes in wrestling again?

Hahaha, just kidding. It doesn't. You're ADORABLE!

I've been to Walmart. I'm pretty sure people already are marrying livestock. And dressing them up and teaching them how to curse.

What the **** would you know? gbaji has a brother/sister/cousin with kids and he spends 2 hours/month with that kid. He's far more of an expert than you on what parents do.

Personally, I put far more effort into reinforcing them being individuals than conforming to anything within society outside of general manners and etiquette.

I have cis-male hetero-privileged friends so it's okay.

Your man is stuffed with straw.

Um... By saying "Dresses are for girls", you are reinforcing the norm. And btw, this is exactly what I was talking about. You don't hate your child when you say that, do you? So why assume others are as well? The problem is when someone is so afraid of imposing gender roles on their child that they don't say "Dresses are for girls". They just see their boy wearing a dress and leap to the conclusion that he must associate with the female gender.

Yeah...that's not how that works. I'm not sure why you'd think it was. No one sees a kid wearing a dress and decides they want to be a girl. Well, no one is a stretch, I guess. No one with an IQ above 80.

Yet he still figured out your argument and stomped it.

The healing power of flames.