Pushing Back Against the Transgender Bathroom Directive

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

School choice still requires that the children go to school when bureaucrats demand, study what bureaucrats require, only learn from teachers approved by bureaucrats, meet the standards bureaucrats establish.

And don't forget doing it at a higher cost than private schooling in plenty of cases.

When my oldest was born, we looked at the local ISD's revenue divided by head count; $8,800/student/year.  We also found a boarding school for $10,500/student/year.  $1,700/year difference between a school that doesn't even include lunch and one that provides full room and board, and much better academic statistics.

[NeuroTypical]

NT's real, true, firsthand, this-really-happened-to-me stories involving genders and bathrooms and persuasions and stuff:

1- In High School, I worked at a family-run candy store.  Boss's son was gay, and about 5-7 years older than me.  Received unwanted attention from gay son in the bathroom.  My uncomfortable was probably mostly due to my worries about him because he was gay, and less due to anything he was doing.

2- A few years ago, a young 4-6 year old girl came in to the WalMart mens room where I was.  She looked around uncomfortably.  I said "Oh honey, looks like you've got the wrong room."  She immediately turned around and went out to her mom, who was standing right there and had apparently sent her in.  As I left the restroom, Mom was doing the passive-aggressive thing of lecturing me by talking to her daughter: "It's ok honey, it's not your fault that some people are too mean to let you use the restroom while the girls room is being cleaned."

3- Locker room story, not a restroom story.  Gym here in Colorado Springs.  Men's locker room is open to all ages, with one section reserved for 18 and over.  I preferred that section, until I was reminded that another definition for "18 and over" is "can legally give consent".  Got chatted up by a gay guy.  He was actually polite and gentlemanly - not creepy at all (other than chatting me up in a locker room). totally respectful my comfort zone, once he found out what it was.  Honestly, with the amount of flirtatious encounters initiated by strangers in my life being numbered on one hand, it really wasn't an unpleasant experience at all.

4- I met a guy a month ago who was struggling to stay married to his wife.  He was getting counseling for his gender confusion stuff.  He was battling feeling like a woman.  His unwanted behavior he was struggling to stop, was cross-dressing.  A big challenge that was making things harder for him: He was on medication that caused him to grow breasts.  He was in hot water with his wife, because he had joined a swim team, giving him the excuse to shave his chest.  

Poor guy in #4 - he is a real person, and really needs a way to go to the bathroom in public without causing an uproar.  He looked like a guy, and wouldn't make anyone uncomfortable in the men's room.  But looking at him, I could imagine him after some surgery and medication, looking (and being) female, belonging in the women's room.  

These people do exist.  And from what I hear, their rates of mental issues and suicide are high off the charts.  They deserve our compassion and understanding.

Edited May 18, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Illuminate my foggy brain, por favor.

 

This is the disagreement as I see it:

1.)  I said - Schools need to be local.  I also said, standardization is necessary but it doesn't need to be mandated as it can be achieved through competition.

2.)  Lehi said - standardization is harmful to students.

3.)  I disagreed.

4.)  You said something about my disagreement destroying itself... something I still don't quite understand how.

 

So, what did I miss?

Lehi: Government should not run schools. (He didn't say it.  But it is because individual freedom is a key).

Ana: Government needs to run schools so there can be standardization.

***** Here is where the discussion took a turn *****

Lehi: Standardization is less important than individual freedom.

Ana: Good standards can be achieved through competition.  Individual competition is not easily achievable in the US because we don't have choice in schooling.

The fundamental point is that if left to private entities and families, competition will naturally give choices and raise standards for schooling throughout a society.  Once government gets involved, it creates education by bureaucracy which not only stifles freedom AND competition, it ensures that standards go down.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Lehi: Government should not run schools. (He didn't say it.  But it is because individual freedom is a key).

Ana: Government needs to run schools so there can be standardization.

***** Here is where the discussion took a turn *****

Lehi: Standardization is less important than individual freedom.

Ana: Good standards can be achieved through competition.  Individual competition is not easily achievable in the US because we don't have choice in schooling.

The fundamental point is that if left to private entities and families, competition will naturally give choices and raise standards for schooling throughout a society.  Once government gets involved, it creates education by bureaucracy which not only stifles freedom AND competition, it ensures that standards go down.

Okay, here's the misunderstanding:

Ana: Government needs to run schools so there can be standardization.

I NEVER said that.

All I said was to bring schools to local control... local can be your house.

But yes, Standardization is necessary.  But, just like good health is necessary, the government doesn't need to be the one to define the end-all-be-all of what the standards of good health is.  It's up to the locals to decide what that is.  But, when farmer A claims his product is organic... the government may control what it means to be organic so that farmer B can't just say his is also organic because he happens to pour cow dung on it.

So, back to schools - School A stamping a student's transcript with Passed Algebra may be defined by government as - yeah, he passed Algebra according to Anatess Standards for Daily Use but not according to The Book of Standards of Vermont.  Or even beyond that - if he Passed Algebra according to The Book of Standards for Inter-State Scholastics For All 50.  As long as people know that, then they can choose which schools they want to send their kid to if they have any plans of moving to Vermont... or if they want to compete for a mathemicatics-heavy job with some kid from Asia.

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The States can decide that for themselves.  The voucher system, for one, doesn't demand anything beyond which schools are accredited for voucher.

And that means the state, not the parents, decide what a "school" is. what government funds, government controls.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

It's well and good to say government should get out of education until you meet the kid who goes to school to escape/rise above the horrors at home.  Philippine public schools are there to catch these hopeless children (and hopeless parents).

The state doesn't change that, and going to school doesn't change that. Going to a state school only makes it worse. They'd be better off without schooling than to have the state supply it.

While it is true that some parents are "hopeless" and have "hopeless" children (the two words not meaning the same thing at all here), it is not sufficient reason to saddle all of us with the costs (which go well beyond the monetary) of government-run, tax-funded welfare schools to help them especially since there are far less intrusive and less costly (again, not just economic) means of reaching the same goals.

Lehi

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

And that means the state, not the parents, decide what a "school" is. what government funds, government controls.

The state doesn't change that, and going to school doesn't change that. Going to a state school only makes it worse. They'd be better off without schooling than to have the state supply it.

While it is true that some parents are "hopeless" and have "hopeless" children (the two words not meaning the same thing at all here), it is not sufficient reason to saddle all of us with the costs (which go well beyond the monetary) of government-run, tax-funded welfare schools to help them especially since there are far less intrusive and less costly (again, not just economic) means of reaching the same goals.

Lehi

We've been through this many times before, Lehi.  And we end up with the same disagreements because you see government-involvement so much more differently than I do.  And we'll never agree on it because it is a classic difference in ideology.

The ideology is basically distilled into this classic Utopia (the Thomas Moore book) concept -
  “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.”

When I see money spent on public welfare, I don't see it as simply a cost without benefit.  I see it as a cost incurred for the benefit of not getting robbed/pillaged/whatever or supporting some thief's accommodations in jail.  Now, of course, you can go overboard with welfare (like America's welfare system is now... and about to be with the "free college" demand).  But the basic tenet of public welfare is that of avoiding the "making of thieves to punish".

But when it comes to education, a government whose citizenship demands knowledge of the Rule of Law and defines citizenship as a birthright has the obligation to provide literacy for those whose first education disposed them to corruption do that they may retain the rights of citizenship with the knowledge of law.

Of course, literacy doesn't have to be provided for through government public schools... government can provide for it in many ways including "education stamps".

But yes, we'll never agree on this.  And that's okay.

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

On 5/13/2016 at 5:49 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

I just read an article by Bruce C. Hafen (I can provide a link later)...he talked about how the decline of marriage/family started in the 1960's when the laws on divorce began to change. Before that a divorce was very hard to get because it was understood that marriage and family were a fundamental unit of society and therefore disintegrating your marriage hurt the community as a whole. 

In this situation the needs of the community would appear to be the higher law. Choosing to place the needs of individuals first began the slippery slope of where we find ourselves now.

This is a curious idea to me, one that frankly I'm still trying to understand myself. It is different than I have always understood it.

Here is what I do to balance it:

1) Government needs to secure every individual has their fundamental freedoms.  Through this, society is allowed to find its own way to unity.

2) Religion needs to remind every individual about their debt and responsibility to society.  Through this, the individual can find his way to be a good member of society.

There is more than one reason why a free people must also be a religious people.

Society starts falling apart when we forget one or both of these rules.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The ideology is basically distilled into this classic Utopia (the Thomas Moore book) concept -

Have you every read the book?  Utopia was the classic example of what we call a "dystopia".  And it is specifically because there was so much governmental control over every aspect of life that there really was no freedom.

This "excuse" for government welfare was the cause of things getting worse in the first place.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Have you every read the book?  Utopia was the classic example of what we call a "dystopia".  And it is specifically because there was so much governmental control over every aspect of life that there really was no freedom.

This "excuse" for government welfare was the cause of things getting worse in the first place.

Of course I read the book... it's required reading in school.

And yes, it is dystopia in the modern era when you have a society that is ruled by the principle that men are created equal and that liberty is inalienable right from God.  It wasn't such a dystopia from the perspective of the Victorian era where a man's worth is dictated by the conditions of one's birth.

Even as we are in the modern era of the Constitution, the principles don't become obsolete simply because there are still those who can't rise beyond the conditions of their birth regardless of how much the Constitution declares they are free.

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

Church Weighs in on Transgender Directive from the White House - LDS Living

Neither criticizing or endorsing President Obama's directive, Church spokesman Eric Hawkins said that the Church believes "everyone is entitled to respect" and that "all people should expect an environment of safety, dignity, and privacy in settings such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, etc." 

The Church understands that this situation is "difficult and sensitive," and it is calling on public  officials to create rules and laws that balance safety, privacy, and dignity while also asking Church members to be prayerful and loving toward transgender people and all of those affected by this directive.
"We believe reasonable solutions can usually be found when people of goodwill come together to find answers," Hawkins said.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

people of goodwill come together to find answers

I'm not even seeing willingness to do that on lds.net, and today, I'm disgusted. It's not just with this issue, either. 

 

[LeSellers]

38 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

when it comes to education, a government whose citizenship demands knowledge of the Rule of Law and defines citizenship as a birthright has the obligation to provide literacy for those whose first education disposed them to corruption do that they may retain the rights of citizenship with the knowledge of law.

Of course, literacy doesn't have to be provided for through government public schools... government can provide for it in many ways including "education stamps".

One possibility. I don't like it, but I could accept it. The problem is that "education stamps" or any other tax-funded system must come with bureaucracy and regulations (which I, too, would demand), and that strips parents of their natural right to control the education of their children.

But I do not see that "citizenship demands the knowledge of the Rule of Law". Unfortunately, anyone born here is a citizen, and with that right should come responsibilities. None are demanded, so this citizenship is a fraud.

Lehi

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

One possibility. I don't like it, but I could accept it. The problem is that "education stamps" or any other tax-funded system must come with bureaucracy and regulations (which I, too, would demand), and that strips parents of their natural right to control the education of their children.

But I do not see that "citizenship demands the knowledge of the Rule of Law". Unfortunately, anyone born here is a citizen, and with that right should come responsibilities. None are demanded, so this citizenship is a fraud.

Lehi

I have no problem with regulations.  It is evident that free market does not work well without regulations.  And no, it does not have to strip parents of their natural right to control the education of their children because the parent has the option to educate their children outside of such regulation in the same manner that people who buy their own food with their own money is not restricted by the regulations of food stamps.

"Citizenship demands..." because in America, according to your Rule of Law... ignorantia juris non excusat in addition to the duty of each citizen to act as jury of his peers.

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Backroads]

I'd totally accept an argument for some standardization, based on what anatess said. I teach in a high-poverty area and believe me, we'd have a lot of kids who wouldn't be in school if it weren't required. Not good for the extended family of the community.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

It is evident that free market does not work well without regulations.

This is not evident.

First, we've never really tried it.

Second, when we have approached it, the system works extremely well.

Third, everything government touches, from war to building railroads, from welfare to welfare schools, everything fails.

Government has no incentive to succeed in the proclaimed goals, and every reason to make the problem worse.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

"Citizenship demands..." because in America, according to your Rule of Law... ignorantia juris non excusat in addition to the duty of each citizen to act as jury of his peers.

I defy you or anyone, literate or not, to be anything other than ignorant of the law. There are too many laws, too many regulations, too much government to know them all. We all break the law many time before we step from our doorway to go to work, and it only gets worse the longer we're awake.

The jury thing, too, is more cant than reason: if you have an education, if you know the Constitution, if you know anything, they won't seat you.

Lehi

Edited May 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

["Education stamps"] does not have to strip parents of their natural right to control the education of their children because the parent has the option to educate their children outside of such regulation in the same manner that people who buy their own food with their own money is not restricted by the regulations of food stamps.

So, a parent can educate his child at home right now. Few claim that right: they'd rather leech off the system. "Education Stamps" would not be any different.

Lehi

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

So, a parent can educate his child at home right now. Few claim that right: they'd rather leech off the system. "Education Stamps" would not be any different.

Lehi

What does that have to do with governance?  You can lead a parent to water, you can't make them drink it.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This is not evident.

First, we've never really tried it.

Second, when we have approached it, the system works extremely well.

Third, everything government touches, from war to building railroads, from welfare to welfare schools, everything fails.

Government has no incentive to succeed in the proclaimed goals, and every reason to make the problem worse.

I defy you or anyone , literate or not, to be anything other than ignorant of the law. There are too many laws, too many regulations, too much government to know them all. We all break the law many time before we step from our doorway to go to work, and it only gets worse the longer we're awake.

The jury thing, too, is more cant than reason: if you have an education, if you know the Constitution, if you know anything, they won't seat you.

Lehi

Like I said... we'll never see eye to eye on this one.

[LeSellers]

48 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I teach in a high-poverty area and believe me, we'd have a lot of kids who wouldn't be in school if it weren't required. Not good for the extended family of the community.

May one ask how successful that teaching is?

Whether there is a compulsory attendance law or not doesn't change the outcomes: children of parents who cannot read (in spite of years of government "teaching") cannot read. Never seeing a significant adult read, the child sees no value in reading.

All the Ferguson rioters had gone to school. Their "education" didn't help the community at all.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

25 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

So, a parent can educate his child at home right now. Few claim that right: they'd rather leech off the system. "Education Stamps" would not be any different.

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What does that have to do with governance?  You can lead a parent to water, you can't make them drink it.

It has nothing to do with "governance", it has to do with whether "education stamps" will allow parents to control the education of their children.

Make something "free" and the paid services will suffer.

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Like I said... we'll never see eye to eye on this one.

I've changed my mind on the matter. So it is not I who am inflexible.

Lehi

Edited May 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[Rhoades]

16 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Get government out of education, and this problem goes away, this one and all of the others, too.

If you are claiming that getting government out of education would make all education problems go away, I disagree.

 

16 hours ago, LeSellers said:

And why is this a problem? Because government is inherently incapable of providing education. It can't because it operates under the concept of bureaucracy: one size fits all.

There are counter examples where government has provided education.  Saying government is inherently incapable of providing education discredits whatever point you wanted to make.

 

Quote

The few parents who could not afford it would use scholarships (which already exist) and loans and help from family.

 Advocating personal debt as the way for the poor to educate their children is a bad idea.  This could lead to poor families getting loans to send their children to bad schools in their bad neighborhoods and those kids still end up in poverty and not very educated.  And in the end neither parent or child is able to pay back the loans.  In some cases, it would just mean no school for the kids.

 

54 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Going to a state school only makes it worse. They'd be better off without schooling than to have the state supply it.

People would be better off without schooling than to have the state supply it?  That's a bold claim.  There are many children from bad backgrounds that benefit from a public education system.  I've known some personally.  If they just stayed in their bedroom playing video games all day or doing drugs with the adults around them I don't think they'd be better off.  Yes, there are some bad schools.  But not all schools are as bad as no school.

 

I have seen plenty of bad in schools.  I know education is being hindered and damaged by government overreach and ridiculousness.  It needs addressed.  However, that's not the only problem.  Education's huge problem is the lack of family support and societal morals.  Privatizing or eliminating schools when everyone is a hoodlum with no morals is not going to make all problems go away.

 

We actually live in an area right now where public schools are pretty good.  We were very familiar with public and private schools in 5 other states and I didn't think such a place existed until we moved here.  I think the public schools here are way better than any public or private schools in ID, UT, and AZ for example.  For the most part the students come from traditional families who love and support them.  Most teachers and local administrators are decent people too.  Having good families with morals is the key to good schools.  Having good families with morals is the key to good schools.  I'll say it again. Having good families with morals is the key to good schools.  Even though our schools still have to put up with common core and other garbage like the average US school, they are helping children become well educated and better people.  Don't underestimate the importance of morals and the importance of the family.

 

If you think big organizations inherently can't do anything of worth or value if they are not driven by capitalism, I disagree.  One counter example is the Church.  This big organization provides Sunday schools and other programs and curriculum to help support our family's gospel learning.  Both public schools and Church programs work best if the family plays an active role in the child's education.  But, sometimes they work even for children who have no support at home.  Both public schools and Church programs work best if good people on the local level implement them and if they help the youth take ownership.  Both public schools and Church programs work best if they aren't filled with wasteful activities that do little or no good.  Both public schools and Church programs work best if local leaders and teachers are given guidance that is wise and then allowed to adapt to the needs of their students.

 

I can sympathize with some of the frustration and such with government and schools.  However, if you think less government would necessarily fix everything I disagree.  Having good families with morals is the key to a good society.  In fact, less government when the people can't govern themselves could make things worse.

[Backroads]

41 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

May one ask how successful that teaching is?

Whether there is a compulsory attendance law or not doesn't change the outcomes: children of parents who cannot read (in spite of years of government "teaching") cannot read. Never seeing a significant adult read, the child sees no value in reading.

All the Ferguson rioters had gone to school. Their "education" didn't help the community at all.

Lehi

About half of my students come from illiterate parents. Most can read and comprehend just fine.

So what's the point of a family taking charge of educating their children if they the parents themselves can't read? Don't you dare, if you can't read, find a way to teach your children to read!

[NeuroTypical]

19 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Because government is inherently incapable of providing education. It can't because it operates under the concept of bureaucracy: one size fits all.

Obviously false on it's face.  Exhibits one through 3,300,000: High school graduates last year.  

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Backroads]

1 hour ago, Rhoades said:

Advocating personal debt as the way for the poor to educate their children is a bad idea.  This could lead to poor families getting loans to send their children to bad schools in their bad neighborhoods and those kids still end up in poverty and not very educated.  And in the end neither parent or child is able to pay back the loans.  In some cases, it would just mean no school for the kids

This is an excellent point. I generally agree with switching to a private or mostly private system, but I just don't see even in a fully private system truly impoverished families finding a way to afford education. There's no real way to pay back loans if you truly need them. Not many will bother with that sort of business.

[mordorbund]

5 minutes ago, Backroads said:

This is an excellent point. I generally agree with switching to a private or mostly private system, but I just don't see even in a fully private system truly impoverished families finding a way to afford education. There's no real way to pay back loans if you truly need them. Not many will bother with that sort of business.

Actually, I think local loans would create some level of @LeSellers organic standardization. The Church, through the Perpetual Education Fund, maintains several local lists of approved schools. You don't get a loan unless your school is on that list. The Church plans on getting its money back. They want you to succeed in school and work because that builds your self-sufficiency. Local institutions that are giving out loans will do so on a similar basis. It can't be handled the way college loans are now where you and I are loaning people money simply on the basis that they got accepted into a(ny) college. I would never make that loan personally, I resent the government making it on my behalf.