Fuck you, Voice of Christian Youth America

[Thudlow_Boink]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not to defend this group, but why should they not stick their noses into public school policy? Many people in the US can’t afford to send their kids to private schools. I can see where lots of parents wouldn’t be too thrilled about the idea of their kids being encouraged to cross-dress, even if it’s for “whacky week”.
[/QUOTE]
At first I thought they might have a smidgen of a point, if kids were being pressured to dress in ways they were uncomfortable with. Then I read the linked article and realized those morons don’t have a leg to stand on.

The “Voice of Christian Youth America” indeed! Hear that, America’s Christian young people? This is who’s claiming to speak for you.

[QUOTE=Rod Flanders]
I’m jealous of girls cause they get to wear dresses.
[/QUOTE]

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=villa]
No, that’s not what the Jewish parents should be told. The thing is, those carols are explicitly Christian. And there is a constitutional requirement that Christianity not be imposed by the public school system.
[/QUOTE]
Well, there’s a constitutional requirement that no religion be imposed by the public school system, true. But the point is, why have an event that’s just for fun, that some kids can’t participate in?

Not every parental concern can be accomodated. That’s life. But surely the ones that take priority should be those that are constitutionally mandated to be considered. What we have here, on the other hand, is an invented concern. It is taking things massively out of context - since when has kids playing dress up been against traditional family values? Despite what has been posted here, it isn’t “cross dressing” any more than a boy playing a female role in a play is.

Not every parental concern CAN be accomodated, but considering this is a FUN event, not in any way related to the curriculum, why do it if it offends people? There is absolutely no reason that this particular concern can’t easily be accomodated.

What the religious group are doing here is deliberately reading a sexual aspect in where there is none. It’s Tinky-Winky again. In fact, it is their actions that are harmful to children. They are the ones who are taking young children and sexualizing their activities. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes elementary school children playing dress up is just a game, not a vicious attempt to recruit them into the dreaded “gay lifestyle.”

I didn’t take their objection to be about the dreaded gay lifestyle, or necessarily “sexual” in nature. Many religious Christians believe in very specific gender roles, and that includes mode of dress. I saw this objection to being about that aspect of their religion.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
How do you know?
[/QUOTE]

Well, for one thing, there’s nothing religious about it, which is the issue with regards to your analogy to Jewish kids and Christmas carols. Public shools are prohibited from endorsing any particular religious view, whether anyone is actually offended or not.

Secondly, there was clearly no intent to comment on any religious belief or value with this thing. The kids themselves came up with the idea and the intent was simply to be “whacky” and funny, not to make any kind of statement on transgenderism.

I suppose people can theoretically find offense in just about anything if they really want to, but getting offended at something like this is really working to find an insult where none is intended.

[Thudlow_Boink]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The kids themselves came up with the idea and the intent was simply to be “whacky” and funny, not to make any kind of statement on transgenderism.
[/QUOTE]
[obnoxious nitpick] Actually, the intent was to be “wacky.” No whacking was involved. [/obnoxious nitpick]

[teela_brown]

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
It was a moo-moo. Imagine Jethro Bodine in one. You get the picture.
[/QUOTE]

I got the picture . No imagining necessary.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Well, for one thing, there’s nothing religious about it, which is the issue with regards to your analogy to Jewish kids and Christmas carols. Public shools are prohibited from endorsing any particular religious view, whether anyone is actually offended or not.

Secondly, there was clearly no intent to comment on any religious belief or value with this thing. The kids themselves came up with the idea and the intent was simply to be “whacky” and funny, not to make any kind of statement on transgenderism.

I suppose people can theoretically find offense in just about anything if they really want to, but getting offended at something like this is really working to find an insult where none is intended.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I personally wouldn’t disagree with your view of it, but I’m not going tell someone else that their view has to be the same as yours and mine, or that their ideas of religious values has to be the same as yours and mine.

In my daughter’s preschool, the teachers and some of the parents appear to be absolutely scared to death of anything that hints even a tiny bit of violence. A note went out to the parents to be SURE the kids’ halloween costumes were completely devoid of ANYTHING that could be construed as violent in nature, including superhero costumes. Personally, I couldn’t care less if the kids want to be superheroes, soldiers, or whatever. But some of the parents don’t like it, so that’s the rule, and my kids have to abide by it, regardless of their personal desires. I see this as the same thing.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, there’s a constitutional requirement that no religion be imposed by the public school system, true. But the point is, why have an event that’s just for fun, that some kids can’t participate in?
[/quote]

They also had the option of dressing as senior citizens.

Not every parental concern CAN be accomodated, but considering this is a FUN event, not in any way related to the curriculum, why do it if it offends people? There is absolutely no reason that this particular concern can’t easily be accomodated.

I didn’t take their objection to be about the dreaded gay lifestyle, or necessarily “sexual” in nature. Many religious Christians believe in very specific gender roles, and that includes mode of dress. I saw this objection to being about that aspect of their religion.

First of all, the parents were informed of the event in advance and none of them objected, so there wasn’t anybody who had to be accomodated except some self-righteous busy bodies from a radio show.

Secondly, not every parental concern deserves consideration. There are parents who don’t believe in “race mixing.” Should schools forbid interracial dancing at school dances to accomodate racist parents?

Parents who try to impose personal ideas of regimented sex roles on the rest of the school (not that any actually did so in this case) are akin to parents objecting to race mixing.

[Kamino_Neko]

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Or this Dave Thomas who at least was on a Canadian sketch comedy show.
[/QUOTE]

But who also probably doesn’t look too hot in a dress.

[Mikemike2]

Maybe the christian group is on to something after all about creeping perversions. Look at the google ads below -

*Crossdressers Community
Dedicated to All Crossdressers!

Pantied Men

CrossDressers - Free
Meet Cross Dressers in Your Area. 100% Free so Join Now!

Feminization Guide*

At first I thought it said painted men.

[villa]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, there’s a constitutional requirement that no religion be imposed by the public school system, true. But the point is, why have an event that’s just for fun, that some kids can’t participate in?

Not every parental concern CAN be accomodated, but considering this is a FUN event, not in any way related to the curriculum, why do it if it offends people? There is absolutely no reason that this particular concern can’t easily be accomodated.
[/QUOTE]

All kids can participate in this. What we shouldn’t do is allow a harmless event, chosen by the kids themself, to be derailed because parents, not kids, have an invented problem with it. If a parent, or a group of parents, did not want little Adolph sat at a table at a school party with little Abdul, are you suggesting we should cancel the party or make the children sit at different tables?

Of course you aren’t. But what you are suggesting is that the bigotry of a group of adults should be allowed to cancel something the kids want that is 100% harmless. As a compromise, though I am not totally sold on it, it might be possible to let the parents keep their kids out of school that day. Or have them do other activities. But why should their preferences, however much they are dressed up as religious objections, trump anyone else’s preferences?

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I didn’t take their objection to be about the dreaded gay lifestyle, or necessarily “sexual” in nature. Many religious Christians believe in very specific gender roles, and that includes mode of dress. I saw this objection to being about that aspect of their religion.
[/QUOTE]

Even if that is the reason, which I doubt, should they be able to dictate that a female teacher or female students not be allowed to wear pants? Single sex classes? No boys in Home Ec, no girls in shop? Again, all of those are ridiculous, but can be justified on exactly the same basis you are proposing. If your religion for some inexplicable reason dictates a uniform to be worn, then wear the uniform. I get nervous when people try to control the dress of others for religious reasons, wether it be imposing the burka in Saudi Arabia, or this sort of crap.

Yes, this event was supposed to be just fun, so I can see why maybe it should be as inclusive as possible. But the thing is - it seems to me to be 100% inclusive. Ye can’t accomodate every kooky belief out there. And having a problem with a young kid playing dress up strikes me as about as kooky as it gets.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
They also had the option of dressing as senior citizens.
[/QUOTE]
So? In my Halloween example, the kids have options…it’s the people who are afraid of toy guns who are taking some options away from my kids.

First of all, the parents were informed of the event in advance and none of them objected, so there wasn’t anybody who had to be accomodated except some self-righteous busy bodies from a radio show.

I didn’t catch that before…if the parents don’t care, I don’t see why anyone else should care.

Secondly, not every parental concern deserves consideration. There are parents who don’t believe in “race mixing.” Should schools forbid interracial dancing at school dances to accomodate racist parents?

Parents who try to impose personal ideas of regimented sex roles on the rest of the school (not that any actually did so in this case) are akin to parents objecting to race mixing.

I would say it’s closer to people objecting to blackface.

[Cervaise]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I would say it’s closer to people objecting to blackface.
[/QUOTE]
Really?

… Really?

[blinkingblinking]

"The response surprised Principal Tammy Hayes, who said no one had raised any objections beforehand. She said a flier detailing Wacky Week had been sent home with children the prior week, and an announcement was also included in teacher newsletters. "

Bullshit!
Did the flier say all the boys will come to school in dresses or skirts? I doubt it. It said we are having a dress-up day. All the parents think ‘Oh little Johnny can be a pirate at school.’
I am agnostic and not homo-phobic, but am I allowed to object to my son’s school wanting him to wear a dress to school?

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Really?

… Really?
[/QUOTE]
Really…no. That was a joke. I’m really not going to die on a hill for these people. Especially since it’s not even the parents who objected. BUT, I don’t see why it’s such a burden to change a day like this over parental objections.

[Zebra]

The parents were informed before hand. The kids had options, including the option to not participate at all.

You know it is one thing to say, ‘Don’t judge someone till you have walked a mile in their shoes’ but actually putting on 3-inch mules for a day is quite a different thing.

I wonder what the other days of the week dress ups were?

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Well, elementary school might be a little too young in many parents’ eyes.
[/QUOTE]

Eh? Elementary school is just about the last time you can try on the other gender’s clothes just for fun without any sexual subtext being psychologically relevant. (Relevant to the kids, that is; there always might be one or two adults in the audience to whom it is very relevant indeed . . .)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
"The response surprised Principal Tammy Hayes, who said no one had raised any objections beforehand. She said a flier detailing Wacky Week had been sent home with children the prior week, and an announcement was also included in teacher newsletters. "

Bullshit!
Did the flier say all the boys will come to school in dresses or skirts? I doubt it. It said we are having a dress-up day. All the parents think ‘Oh little Johnny can be a pirate at school.’
I am agnostic and not homo-phobic, but am I allowed to object to my son’s school wanting him to wear a dress to school?
[/QUOTE]

How do you know what the letter said?

Apparently, the parents were told that kids had a choice of either dressing up as the opposite sex or as senior citizens (or not to dress up at all). You are claiming to have some special knowledge that information was withheld from the parents. Cite?

[Sarahfeena]

I should add that I don’t think it’s the same as the interracial dancing example Diogenes gave, in all seriousness. Objecting to two students of different races being friends is in no way the same as objecting to crossdressing done as a gag. This clothes-swapping day is not being done as some kind of statement about the rights of LGBT folks to live their life free of prejudice. If it was about a child and his or her genuine issue with being transgendered, for example, I would defend them thoroughly. That is not what’s going on here. I see no difference at all between this and the example I gave about the superhero Halloween costumes. It may be more politically correct to ban “violent” costumes than “transgendered” costumes, but it’s all about accomodating one opinion over another.

[Carol_the_Impaler]

[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
"The response surprised Principal Tammy Hayes, who said no one had raised any objections beforehand. She said a flier detailing Wacky Week had been sent home with children the prior week, and an announcement was also included in teacher newsletters. "

Bullshit!
Did the flier say all the boys will come to school in dresses or skirts? I doubt it. It said we are having a dress-up day. All the parents think ‘Oh little Johnny can be a pirate at school.’
I am agnostic and not homo-phobic, but am I allowed to object to my son’s school wanting him to wear a dress to school?
[/QUOTE]

The school didn’t want him to. The little kids chose the theme.

And if a parent of one of the kids at the school had a problem with it, they had the option to have their kid go as a senior citizen or not dress up at all. Everyone understands what this is except some exciteable religious freaks.

[blinkingblinking]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
How do you know what the letter said?

Apparently, the parents were told that kids had a choice of either dressing up as the opposite sex or as senior citizens (or not to dress up at all). You are claiming to have some special knowledge that information was withheld from the parents. Cite?
[/QUOTE]

I am not claiming special knowledge. I would love to see what the flier actually said. It is ludicrous for you to write ‘Cite?’ Are you some kind of moron?
I am saying that if the flier was explicit, then it is doubtful there was not one parent objecting. Is that too difficult for your feeble brain to comprehend?