Cross-dressing in schools

[brough]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

[bluethread]

If education is truly the purpose of the public schools, then the only reason I see for brick and mortor schools is to provide education to those who have no supervision at home or are not able to learn self-dscipline. In that case, a dress code is in order, because discipline is a primary factor.

[brough]

McCulloch: Which of the world's many problems are growing? Is civilization in danger? Are our thousands of years old traditions a help or a hindrance to them? Is the breakdown of the patriarchal monogamous system a good thing or a bad thing in the long run? Why?

Nuclear proliferation, taking more energy to extract energy, global warming, terrorism, polution, loss of species, over-population, and growing income disparity, obesity, and environmental damage to name a few.

Is our civilization in danger? All civilizations have grown, topped out and then declined. Our secular ideals and ideology is becoming less able to hold it ideologically together. To solve world problems takes cooperation, and we are evidencing less of it. We love "democracy" so much we hate our "politicians" and load our media with condemnation of "big government."

Is the breakdown of the patriarchal-monogamous system "good" or "bad"? I's not a moral matter. What I am saying is that it has always shown signs of happening in past civilizations and leads to religious regression, decline in science, and economic stagnation.

Then a new civilization develops in its place. . .

I've just saved you from having to spend a few decades studying all the past civilizations to find that out!

[His Name Is John]

I don't get cross dressing at all.

I can't see the point in it to be honest. One of the strangest pieces of news was when I read about the way male bras had started selling really well in Japan. I can't understand it, but I presume that its causes are not valid reasons to allow it.

If greater evidence comes to light I will happily change my opinion, but I think this is an issue about culture and society rather than religion and philosophy (although both can be used in working out what to do with the evidence).

[connermt]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

In most modern societies, there are freedoms along with rules. Just because I'm free to dress like the opposite gender doesn't mean I'm free to do so at work. The same could be said of public schools by (one way) simply administering a dress code/uniform policy.
What's disturbing is that you seem to be equating "cross dressing" with being "gay". The two are totally different and independent of each other. Not seeing so is disturbing IMO.

[Choir Loft]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

You struck at the core of the issue when you pointed out the dichotomy between pretended liberty and actual liberty. Such examples as you cite make it very clear that liberty, although a subject of story and song, is far from being actually practiced in America today.

It isn't just Washington DC that has usurped liberty in the land. There's lots of little Hitlers out there from the halls of congress to the local home owner's association that dictates whether you can fly our nation's flag or what color to paint your house.

Liberty is dead in America and it was killed by those who wish to exert their influence over others who refuse to accept it.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[kayky]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

It will lead to a better world

[Logomachist]

Let me explain what I mean: as you know, the sexes have both physical and emotional differences.

In some species sex roles are fixed and the differences between males and females are profound but I don't think that applies to humans. Social inclinations/preferences are traditions and memes, not roles evolved over millions of years. Individual brain chemistry trumps the sex chromosome. Some males tend toward submissiveness; some females tend toward dominance. When I read scripture (or really any ancient writing) that says "women do this" and "men do this" I don't read it as referring to men and women as you understand the genders, I read them as "submissives" and "dominants" respectively.

My own interpretation of how a man normally behaves is that he sees his prime responsibility as protecting the welfare of his woman and children---also protecting his private property (his "territory"). He also sees his role as controlling the male juveniles (in-the-home disciplining and in society, the justice system). Since society is also a broadening of his "group," he also feels responsible for protecting it, the nation, its alliance.

Since not all males make good protectors (and because some women do) wouldn't it make more sense to just say "leaders should protect their charges", and that if you're going to give orders be benevolent about it? No need to bring sex into the discussion.

Moreover, there is a feeling in him that what he protects is his. That is, he feels an unexpressed pride of ownership. And because of his natural focus on protecting and keeping order in it, he is the best trained to deal with it. "His woman" is more focussed on childbearing.

Just... no. A man (or woman) doesn't need to treat people as possessions to pride himself on their defense. If you had merely said that historically men led and protected their families I would have agreed with the general sentiment, but says a man owns his family? Acting this way risks becoming abusive!

As long as the male society is well run and the leadership respected, women happily and diligently fulfill their role. However, when society grows divided and weakens, the women are innately sensitive to it and immediately begin to assert themselves. This is a rather universal characteristic of primate behavior, not just ours. It has happened in every civilization. As the women gain position, the men give it up, become less responsible and drift to sports-watching, indulgence and, in some cases, become abusive to their woman.

Yes, history teaches that gender bending is correlated with the decline of civilizations, but I would be careful before I blamed strong women for the decline. Dominant (truly dominant leaders, not shrewish) women have the potential to hold things together as the world is falling apart around them. What really hurts is an overall loss of good leadership- something that happens when men are meek followers and women can't/don't pick up the slack.

Psychologically speaking, the ideal is androgyny- the ability to shift between the male/dominance/yang and female/submissiveness/yin with ease. When that happens people adapt fluidly to changing circumstances, leading when required and following more capable leaders than themselves.

So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years. Where will it lead?

Ideally? It leads to the Kingdom of God. In John 13, when Jesus is washing his disciples' feet, he's taking on the role of a slave (a submissive). He's telling his (male) followers to be submissive- to be like women or slaves!
Jesus' message is tailored particularly to a civilization on the brink. Like our own, it's the product of an apocalyptic age and it's saying we don't need to fear the gender bending- submissiveness itself can lead to the kingdom of God.

[Logomachist]

Let me explain what I mean: as you know, the sexes have both physical and emotional differences.

In some species sex roles are fixed and the differences between males and females are profound but I don't think that applies to humans. Social inclinations/preferences are traditions and memes, not roles evolved over millions of years. Individual brain chemistry trumps the sex chromosome. Some males tend toward submissiveness; some females tend toward dominance. When I read scripture (or really any ancient writing) that says "women do this" and "men do this" I don't read it as referring to men and women as you understand the genders, I read them as "submissives" and "dominants" respectively.

My own interpretation of how a man normally behaves is that he sees his prime responsibility as protecting the welfare of his woman and children---also protecting his private property (his "territory"). He also sees his role as controlling the male juveniles (in-the-home disciplining and in society, the justice system). Since society is also a broadening of his "group," he also feels responsible for protecting it, the nation, its alliance.

Since not all males make good protectors (and because some women do) wouldn't it make more sense to just say "leaders should protect their charges", and that if you're going to give orders be benevolent about it? No need to bring sex into the discussion.

Moreover, there is a feeling in him that what he protects is his. That is, he feels an unexpressed pride of ownership. And because of his natural focus on protecting and keeping order in it, he is the best trained to deal with it. "His woman" is more focussed on childbearing.

Just... no. A man (or woman) doesn't need to treat people as possessions to pride himself on their defense. If you had merely said that historically men led and protected their families I would have agreed with the general sentiment, but says a man owns his family? Acting this way risks becoming abusive!

As long as the male society is well run and the leadership respected, women happily and diligently fulfill their role. However, when society grows divided and weakens, the women are innately sensitive to it and immediately begin to assert themselves. This is a rather universal characteristic of primate behavior, not just ours. It has happened in every civilization. As the women gain position, the men give it up, become less responsible and drift to sports-watching, indulgence and, in some cases, become abusive to their woman.

Yes, history teaches that gender bending is correlated with the decline of civilizations, but I would be careful before I blamed strong women for the decline. Dominant (truly dominant leaders, not shrewish) women have the potential to hold things together as the world is falling apart around them. What really hurts is an overall loss of good leadership- something that happens when men are meek followers and women can't/don't pick up the slack.

Psychologically speaking, the ideal is androgyny- the ability to shift between the male/dominance/yang and female/submissiveness/yin with ease. When that happens people adapt fluidly to changing circumstances, leading when required and following more capable leaders than themselves.

So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years. Where will it lead?

Ideally? It leads to the Kingdom of God. In John 13, when Jesus is washing his disciples' feet, he's taking on the role of a slave (a submissive). He's telling his (male) followers to be submissive- to be like women or slaves! Jesus' message is tailored particularly to a civilization on the brink. Like our own, it's the product of an apocalyptic age and it's saying we don't need to fear the gender bending- submissiveness itself can lead to the kingdom of God.

[Choir Loft]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

It will lead to a better world

Not necessarily - at least as far as the school system and those boys are concerned. It won't lead to a better world.

What about wearing a kilt? The connotation of wearing a kilt is purely cultural and that of my ancestors the Scots. It has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation, yet what do you suppose would happen if a group of boys wore kilts, as a man's traditional garment, to school (including the lack of anything beneath - to 'go commando' as the modern term puts it)?

Same thing.

I'd bet money on it and I'll bet I'd find no takers here at all.

The issue at hand isn't what one wears, but the cultural acceptance of restriction - THE LACK OF LIBERTY to act and to live if it doesn't hurt one's neighbor.

I'm not advocating gay dress, I'm just saying ..... pay attention to unjust regulations.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...