California, 1st state to mandate gay history

41 posts in this topic

Posted

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/CA-First-state-to-mandate-gay-history-in-public-schools-125743188.html

so yeah... I would say this isn't a good idea, but that is what people said about woman and blacks at that time when this was happining to them as well. honestly i don't care but theres lots of flames going around about it

Lets here some of your opinions about this interesting subject

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I think talking about these people in a separate history line is making and highlighting a difference between "them" and the "normal" people, so not a good idea.

Being gay, black, a woman... These are traits that (at different levels) are distinctive yes, but what is important when you study history is what have been done, and the "who" part only gives a contextual insight on different times' societies.

This is not through historical isolation that homophobic behaviors will disappear, but through public dailylife acknowledgement. This can be helped at school, but I think their doing it wrong like that!

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I think this has a lot of potential to do good. Yes, there's the chance that it'll alienate them as a group or something, but there's also a really good chance that not only will it help a lot of gay children to see "I'm not worthless after all," I think it can also help towards inspiring tolerance towards homosexuals overall.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

suspicious.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

This is not the place for image macros, especially if they comprise your entire response.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Well living in California, and having worked with the school district, i think it will cause more trouble than good. IN the past they have tried to push the "equality" bill into every subject. Lets say you have a math problem, you not only have to have world problems but equal publicity for all ethinicities and minorities. So instead of a couple has 5 dollars the buy oranges for 3 dollars, how much do they have left? Now it has to be a GAY couple, or black couple. I think it just alienates and issue, and brings it to light. I think the more attention you bring to a problem the more you point out differences, the more contention that will follow. I believe that sexual orientation is something that can and should be left in the bedroom, by all peoples.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

KKStarfox has hit the nail on the head.

A good % of California's bills have something to do with promoting some GLBT related issue or trying to do something silly like force business owners to allow their employee's to cross dress while on duty. It's the only state to do this to this extent and I see it in the news all the time. With all their debt problems (California has it much worse than other states) you would think they could be doing something more productive than, IMO, more trivial things like this.

By doing something like this they will have marginalized (again) the GLBT community without even knowing it.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Having a "gay history" class in of itself in a high school setting would be kind of silly considering it's a rather amorphous business; it's not quite the same as racial history events.

My high school social studies did talk a great deal about GLBT issues and rights, so I don't find the idea particularly mind-blowing (I don't think it was ever part of the curriculum, but it came up) that, gasp, high schools will acknowledge the existence of gay people. So there's a gay couple in your textbook...so what? Acknowledging gay couples as normal is beneficiary. A lot of people, whether or not they want to be a homophobe, will find themselves to sway that way naturally just because homosexuality tends to be taboo in mainstream areas like educational settings.

A good % of California's bills have something to do with promoting some GLBT related issue or trying to do something silly like force business owners to allow their employee's to cross dress while on duty.

How is it silly to allow people to dress as their gender identity, or in ways they are comfortable with?

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

How is it silly to allow people to dress as their gender identity, or in ways they are comfortable with?

Well, from a business owner's standpoint it affects revenue. Customers aren't as inclined to do business with a male employee who dresses like a women for a week than reverts back for the next week.

And the silly aspect of it comes from the constant changing of it every week or two or whatever period of time it is. This isn't referring to a "perma" change in how one dresses. I should have stated that earlier, my bad. My main point is though is that some decisions like this are better left to the companies to make their own policies on, not regulation by the government.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

My opinion on this is much like the complaint of the lack of gay game characters. Simply put, it never comes up.

"In 1986 the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl exploded. Also some guys liked bum sex probably."

The only time I think it's relivent was Alan Turing, one of the inventors of the electronic computer and helped win WW2 who was was rewarded for his great work by being arrested for homosexuality. Even that is pretty niche.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

That might sound awfully conservative, but for a fair part of the population, it's awkward to see a guy dressed like a woman (designer mode made the opposite classy so... :P ).

If the customer feels awkward, it's kinda bad for business somehow.

It is a common fact that some work environment impose their own dress-code, such as wearing a uniform, or dressing in a "neutral" way.

Actually, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. At work, you're kinda not a man or a woman anymore, you're a worker following working conventions/regulations.

Since cross-dressing wasn't forbidden before (I think), that's silly to impose its acceptation now... :|

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Well, from a business owner's standpoint it affects revenue. Customers aren't as inclined to do business with a male employee who dresses like a women for a week than reverts back for the next week.

And the silly aspect of it comes from the constant changing of it every week or two or whatever period of time it is. This isn't referring to a "perma" change in how one dresses. I should have stated that earlier, my bad. My main point is though is that some decisions like this are better left to the companies to make their own policies on, not regulation by the government.

I get what you're saying but it's still a societal problem and double-standard that deserves some addressing. It's not all that fair that women can get away with dressing like men, but not vise-versa. Jobs are a huge part of people's lives, and if they're someone who feels far more comfortable being who they are, then it would be greatly impeding not to be allowed that freedom. It is perfectly possible to dress "tastefully" as the opposite gender...a man wanting to dress as a woman regularly doesn't necessarily mean freaky makeup, a showgirl dress and a multicoloured beehive hairdo.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Yeah, no fair... We should all wear kimonos anyway! :P

I agree to say it's societal. After all, until recently, women to dress like men were down-looked. So the social image of men dressing as women may change in the future, but for the moment, it feels awkward for most, it's just a fact...

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I personally love skirts. Hella comfortable, especially to run in. But I did get a whole lot of weird looks when I wore one to school.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

A man wanting to dress as a woman regularly doesn't necessarily mean freaky makeup, a showgirl dress and a multicoloured beehive hairdo.

As long as it's within reason and doesn't interfere with business operations that's perfectly fine. Unfortunately, for most people the first image that comes into their head when they think of a drag queen is someone who does it to the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

As long as it's within reason and doesn't interfere with business operations that's perfectly fine. Unfortunately, for most people the first image that comes into their head when they think of a drag queen is someone who does it to the extreme.

For what it's worth, when I worked in IT I stopped wearing a tie because it kept getting caught in the machines.

Also, high heels can interfere. As can masks, weapons ect. Ultimatly it's up to the business owner. The famous haulage company Eddie Stobart had a uniform that had ties at one point. Eventually they decided to remove it.

Finally, the extreme means nothing and everything. It means nothing in the same way gay pride people are irritating. That doesn't mean all gays should be banned from working in case they freak out and dry hump the customers. Likewise, even the most moderate furry isn't likely to get away wearing a fursuit at work. In short, there is a time and a place for these things.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I personally love skirts. Hella comfortable, especially to run in. But I did get a whole lot of weird looks when I wore one to school.

Don't you listen to them Xort honey, you can be anything you want to be.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I second Xort, and agree that wigs are simply faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabulouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusss~

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

If you wear a kilt, I think it's fine, but you'd better be ginger and have a strong scottish accent! \o/

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

If you wear a kilt, I think it's fine, but you'd better be ginger and have a strong scottish accent! \o/

Oh ho ho, I have plenty to say on this but that's for another topic. :3

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Oh ho ho, I have plenty to say on this but that's for another topic. :3

HEY! I'm the only one you can tie blue ribbons on with kilts. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

o xort bby tell me more

For what it's worth, when I worked in IT I stopped wearing a tie because it kept getting caught in the machines.

Also, high heels can interfere. As can masks, weapons ect. Ultimatly it's up to the business owner. The famous haulage company Eddie Stobart had a uniform that had ties at one point. Eventually they decided to remove it.

Finally, the extreme means nothing and everything. It means nothing in the same way gay pride people are irritating. That doesn't mean all gays should be banned from working in case they freak out and dry hump the customers. Likewise, even the most moderate furry isn't likely to get away wearing a fursuit at work. In short, there is a time and a place for these things.

"High heels" aren't the only woman's shoe, and practicality aside there's still things like makeup, earrings, hairdos, blouses, etc. Lots of jobs demand specific wear, so that's one thing, but retail or office, the only excuse is transphobia...but it's on part of a transphobic society, not just employers.

And...really?

Gender identity =/= internet fetish. A dude showing up to work in a gigantic, clunky, overheating cartoon wolf suit is not the same thing as a dude showing up in a nice suit skirt that compliments his figure...and then being told not to, despite the fact that co-worker Tammy has no problem with her skirts.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Gender identity =/= internet fetish. A dude showing up to work in a gigantic, clunky, overheating cartoon wolf suit is not the same thing as a dude showing up in a nice suit skirt that compliments his figure...and then being told not to, despite the fact that co-worker Tammy has no problem with her skirts.

I disagree because they are the same thing. There are furries who consider it a part of their identity, (otherkin) so by that messure they are the same. If you claim that is not the case, then it also stands to reason a skirt is also just a costume and therefor has no place at work.

I agree with your point about transphobia as you put it, that if Tammy can so should Bill. The problem is why should Peter not be allowed? Why single out one over the rest?

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

I disagree because they are the same thing. There are furries who consider it a part of their identity, (otherkin) so by that messure they are the same. If you claim that is not the case, then it also stands to reason a skirt is also just a costume and therefor has no place at work.

Gender identity... is the same as the furry fetish? I have to disagree there. While most furries will consider their fursona as part of their identity, it's totally seperate from their gender identity.

Gender identity is the gender you associate yourself with, mentally, physically and emotionally. Your fursona is the animal you assicoate yourself with, which is a totally different species. And yes you may feel stronly about it, but there's a reason we don't have fursuits as an option alongside formal wear.

I personally have a friend in real life who is otherkin, he's actually the partner of the owner of Bad Dragon. I think I'll pick his brains on this subject now to get a clearer view.

And if you can suggest that skirts are merely costume, then the same can be said about trousers. Skirts express femininity, and trousers express masculinity. Both can be considered costume.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted

Yeah... We all should wear nothing! \o/

Share this post


Link to post