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?

[ThatGirlAgain]

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?

Since the company I work for has some contracts with New York State and we sometimes have NYS employees temporarily resident here, we are theoretically bound by some of the State polices. In particular, we are supposed to let people use the rest room of the gender they identify with regardless of physical attributes.


As far as I know, there have been no takers so far.

Custom is often a far far bigger influence that law.

For example, the whole 'women must cover their tops in public' laws were deemed unconstitutional according to state law. That means, theoretically, that anyplace than men can legally go topless at , women can too, including all public beaches.

However, custom is stronger than law, and no one takes advantage of that.

Not exactly nobody.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... bowery.php

Sorry no, there are no dirty pictures.

[Thatguy]

An obvious solution to this "problem" is to require unisex uniforms and large/total makeup restrictions. Everybody's equal, and conservatives are sated.
An arguably better solution is to be accept cross-dressing as long as it would look perfectly acceptable on the other gender, but there are few places on Earth where that might actually succeed.

That is concensus Secular Humanist doctrine, I know, but is our society and civilization so healthy and so effectively solving the world's many growing problems that it can solve them better by changing the five thousand year pariarchal-monogamous nature of civilization itself?

When gayness is "accepted" and "equal," much of the large population percentage that is bisexual switches over from the diminishing prestige and status of the patriarchal system and take up homosexul liasons. This is a slow process of breaking down the patriarchal monogamous system. What soon develops in its place is a sort of Babylonian system as described in the Old Testament. In my reseach on civilizations, I found this change preceeded the fall of every past civilization.

Where to begin? One of the ways we can help improve many of society's ills is permitting people the freedom to be who they are. Forcing them to live their lives as a lie only builds resentment, frustration, shame and anger. These express themselves in multiple, unproductive ways. Humiliating and mocking people for who they happen to love doesn't improve the world. Legally forcing people to dress according to the norm is a waste of our resources and an unjustified intervention in people's lives.

A guy can wear a dress and still be monogamous. Not sure where the monogamy enters into it. Other than being a myth. We may pride ourselves on monogamy, but the violations of this norm are so common that we can't be seen as a naturally monogamous species.

As for patriarchal, that's another source of problems. Why not be a society that gives authority to those who have merit instead of those who have the right set of genitals. If a couple wants to be patriarchal, that's their right. If they want to work out a division of labor and responsibility based on needs and abilities, so much the better. Society has been patriarchal for a long time. It has not worked out well. Increasing the diversity of the voices in power leads to better, more balanced decision making.

As has been asked, what reference materials indicate that societies that start to tolerate homosexuality they collapse. Or that a large part of this is bi people upsetting the balance by going gay. The idea that Rome fell because of moral decline isn't at the cutting edge of historical research, it's something you'd read in a Jack Chick tract. Some societies did their best work while accepting that some people of the same sax like to fiddle around with each other.

I know that girls in pants offended people for a long time. I'm not sure you could prove causation if you tried to tie the rise in internet fraud to the acceptance of girls in pants.

[brough]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 321#435321]ThatGirlAgain]

Since the company I work for has some contracts with New York State and we sometimes have NYS employees temporarily resident here, we are theoretically bound by some of the State polices. In particular, we are supposed to let people use the rest room of the gender they identify with regardless of physical attributes. As far as I know, there have been no takers so far.

Thinking long term, this "gaining more freedom" would seem to further break down what the radicals call "sexual steriotypes." The rest of the world has become increasingly hesitant about always following us and adopting the changes we make in our society. We are being seen as decedant. This among many other reasons could help explain why Islam is turning against us and why world cooperation is breaking down to the point where growing world problems are not being effectively delt with.

[brough]

Is our society and civilization so healthy and so effectively solving the world's many growing problems that it can solve them better by changing the five thousand year [strike]pariarchal[/strike]-patriarchal monogamous nature of civilization itself?

Which problems are growing?

When gayness is "accepted" and "equal," much of the large population percentage that is bisexual switches over from the diminishing prestige and status of the patriarchal system and take up [strike]homosexul liasons[/strike] homosexual liaisons. This is a slow process of breaking down the patriarchal monogamous system. What soon develops in its place is a sort of Babylonian system as described in the Old Testament. In my [strike]reseach [/strike]research on civilizations, I found this change [strike]preceeded [/strike]preceded the fall of every past civilization.

Are you predicting the fall of the Western Enlightenment civilizations? Is your research backed up by anyone other than armchair historians pushing some half-baked populist theories?

Thanks for reminding me I failed to use the spellcheck. I was taught to spell phonetically while a kid and have never spelled well.

Regarding your snide remark, do you really expect a reply?

[brough]

An obvious solution to this "problem" is to require unisex uniforms and large/total makeup restrictions. Everybody's equal, and conservatives are sated.
An arguably better solution is to be accept cross-dressing as long as it would look perfectly acceptable on the other gender, but there are few places on Earth where that might actually succeed.

That is concensus Secular Humanist doctrine, I know, but is our society and civilization so healthy and so effectively solving the world's many growing problems that it can solve them better by changing the five thousand year pariarchal-monogamous nature of civilization itself?

When gayness is "accepted" and "equal," much of the large population percentage that is bisexual switches over from the diminishing prestige and status of the patriarchal system and take up homosexul liasons. This is a slow process of breaking down the patriarchal monogamous system. What soon develops in its place is a sort of Babylonian system as described in the Old Testament. In my reseach on civilizations, I found this change preceeded the fall of every past civilization.

Where to begin? One of the ways we can help improve many of society's ills is permitting people the freedom to be who they are. Forcing them to live their lives as a lie only builds resentment, frustration, shame and anger. These express themselves in multiple, unproductive ways. Humiliating and mocking people for who they happen to love doesn't improve the world. Legally forcing people to dress according to the norm is a waste of our resources and an unjustified intervention in people's lives.

A guy can wear a dress and still be monogamous. Not sure where the monogamy enters into it. Other than being a myth. We may pride ourselves on monogamy, but the violations of this norm are so common that we can't be seen as a naturally monogamous species.

As for patriarchal, that's another source of problems. Why not be a society that gives authority to those who have merit instead of those who have the right set of genitals. If a couple wants to be patriarchal, that's their right. If they want to work out a division of labor and responsibility based on needs and abilities, so much the better. Society has been patriarchal for a long time. It has not worked out well. Increasing the diversity of the voices in power leads to better, more balanced decision making.

As has been asked, what reference materials indicate that societies that start to tolerate homosexuality they collapse. Or that a large part of this is bi people upsetting the balance by going gay. The idea that Rome fell because of moral decline isn't at the cutting edge of historical research, it's something you'd read in a Jack Chick tract. Some societies did their best work while accepting that some people of the same sax like to fiddle around with each other.

I know that girls in pants offended people for a long time. I'm not sure you could prove causation if you tried to tie the rise in internet fraud to the acceptance of girls in pants.

Your total post is a beautiful example of consensus social theory. I see you have achieved what is called "a liberal arts education" and what the academic community promises will "teach you how to think."

When I bring up the point above in forums, I get more hate remarks then when I talk atheism in the Christian forums! Both the Christian and Secular Humanist faiths are "closed systems of thinking." For every criticism, each has a predictable and heated response.

Secular Humanism has been shaped by social theorists to subtly accommodate to the old religions. Advanced social theory would be totally atheistic. Your compromised, consensus version has until now brought unity and hence a "global economy" to the world. It provided the unity that made it possible.

However, world problems are growing now because our secular system is losing appeal to people in much of the rest of the world. It is no longer "advanced."

[Haven]

Thinking long term, this "gaining more freedom" would seem to further break down what the radicals call "sexual steriotypes." The rest of the world has become increasingly hesitant about always following us and adopting the changes we make in our society. We are being seen as decedant. This among many other reasons could help explain why Islam is turning against us and why world cooperation is breaking down to the point where growing world problems are not being effectively delt with.

What, exactly, is wrong with breaking down sexual stereotypes? So, because I'm a man, I have to watch football, drink cheap beer, have no fashion sense, listen to country and 80s metal, act tough and aggressive, and look down upon women? If I don't behave like this, I'm not a real man?

A woman must act passive and quiet, love to gossip, be obsessed with fashion, not have a career, stay at home, cook and clean, and remain barefoot and pregnant? If she doesn't act like this, she's not a real woman?

Are you really advocating such thinking?

Why must individuals conform to stereotypes based on the set of genitals they have? There is no rational reason to insist people need to conform to some arbitrary stereotype.

[brough]

HAVEN, I'm glad you brought that up! I had not assumed most men had such a warped, male juvenile belief about what manhood is! I am not saying that men or women should behave like you describe.

Let me explain what I mean: as you know, the sexes have both physical and emotional differences. We evolved with them through millions of years of evolution and thus they are functional. We climbed the ladder of "progress" and created civilization not inspite of but because of them.

Our ideological systems such as the older faith and the more recent secular one validate our differences in ways that benefit society. But when they begin to push us away from our natural, evolved social behavioral inclinations and preferences, we begin to work against our innate nature and society begins to break down---as is currently happening and accounts for so much tension, despair and society's inability to solve world problems.

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.

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.

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.

Also, those in power become more corrupt.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...
But when they begin to push us away from our natural, evolved social behavioral inclinations and preferences, we begin to work against our innate nature and society begins to break down---as is currently happening and accounts for so much tension, despair and society's inability to solve world problems.

Sexuality is built on a continuum, from effeminate males to bull-dagger dykes. Even a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory will tell us that there are no "set in stone" rules regarding the sexualities found in h. h. sapiens. For you to suggest otherwise is to display a complete failure to incorporate this data into your analysis.

What we see historically is that a typically religious majority will seek to impose their own narrow view of what it means to be of one sex or another. There is much literature to suggest that if religious folks'd get over their own hangups in this regard, the "despair" and "problems" you mention would likely disappear.

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.

So then, a woman who may be better equipped in this regard suddenly becomes a "man" by your reckoning, while her paraplegic husband is to be neutered.

You have just insulted the entire population of females who serve as policemen, firemen, and soldiers, to name a few traditionally male dominated roles. Moreover, you've insulted a good bit of the male population that is not the bread winner, not the disciplinarian, or not the one living up to your ideal of what it means to be a man.

The remainder of your post is more of the same ill-informed, outdated dogma.

[McCulloch]

Regarding your snide remark, do you really expect a reply?

Yes, I do.

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?

[brough]

JOEYKNOTHEAD:

Sexuality is built on a continuum, from effeminate males to bull-dagger dykes. Even a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory will tell us that there are no "set in stone" rules regarding the sexualities found in h. h. sapiens. For you to suggest otherwise is to display a complete failure to incorporate this data into your analysis.

What we see historically is that a typically religious majority will seek to impose their own narrow view of what it means to be of one sex or another. There is much literature to suggest that if religious folks'd get over their own hangups in this regard, the "despair" and "problems" you mention would likely disappear.

So then, a woman who may be better equipped in this regard suddenly becomes a "man" by your reckoning, while her paraplegic husband is to be neutered.

You have just insulted the entire population of females who serve as policemen, firemen, and soldiers, to name a few traditionally male dominated roles. Moreover, you've insulted a good bit of the male population that is not the bread winner, not the disciplinarian, or not the one living up to your ideal of what it means to be a man.

Of course male/female differences are not rigid! I would hope you would have understood that. I only delt with the alpha male trait as gleaned from the social instincts we have in common with other primates. If you disbelieve we also evolved as primates, you might say so. As a matter of fact, there is an alpha hen-pecking order among women also--as in other primates.

In between the alpha male and the feminine trait, there is an intermediate area. In human rather than animal-study terminology, that middle ground is called gayness or homosexuality. It shows up as gay culture in our society and breaks down and changes the monogamous/patriarchal structure that characterizes civilizations.

What happens when it is changed? In human history, the lesson is that barbarians invade, take over, and restore the monogamous/patriarchal system. I am interested only in what happens, not in judging "what ought to happen." You get all antagonistic from your secular dogma position, and it sounds like it would if I were burning the Bible or the Koran.

What does the history tell us today? Simply that terrorism is the modern form of barbarism. Its threat has grown, even though unevently, over the last half century, but it feeds on our weakness. What weakness do we have today that would make us gradually more and more vulnerable and hence enable it to keep growing as a threat?

The answer is our demonstrated and growing inability to deal effectively with such serious world problems as global warming, diminishing resources, nuclear proliferation, species loss, over-population, polution, popular unrest, etc.