In response to the story about Redwood Heights Elementary School in CA using examples from nature to teach kids about "multiple genders", Michael Lopez comments (emphasis his):
[Fish switching sexes] is absolutely not where you want to plant your flag if you’re trying to convince people — kids or not — that somehow transsexuality or the breaking of sex-based behavior (i.e., “gender roles”) is somehow natural. In the first place, what fish do sexually is completely irrelevant to what we do; it’s the same as an argument that we should all have unisex bathrooms because bacteria don’t have sex. It’s ludicrous.
Furthermore, trying to make these arguments in support of a tolerance agenda is a losing battle. If natural evolutionary sexual behavior is where you want to have your battle, those who argue against such things have nature pretty squarely on their side: the fact that other species have three sexes, or whatnot, means very little. Humans appear to have evolved to be sexually dimorphic, and with certain broad behaviors that signal masculinity and femininity. The fact that fish change their sex naturally just emphasizes the fact that humans don’t.
4 Comments
You can't take anyone seriously that says its ok for us to do it because animals do it. My dog sits in front of us and cleans his private parts regularly. This guy would say that it is ok for us to do it too.
Very sadly they are teaching this in some MA schools as a result of SSM. One of the other consequences of SSM was it allowed the transvestites to have access to the schools.
So much for the argument that SSM will not affect your marriage or society.
fred, read your comment back to yourself. are u saying that folks shouldn't clean their private parts regularly?
So despite having no understanding of transgender issues...
Maggie's response on trans issues to an e-mail
"I do not have any developed views on this question--except I do not believe individuals have a right to expect they can change genders on a whim, or on a daily basis, and expect others to take it seriously. I'm much less concerned about transgenderism that requires permanent and substantive change (including surgery or hormonal treatment and petitioning the court). I may or may not agree with it--I have no clear developed views--but it will not affect the main question.
If it is possible to change gender, then it is possible--in which case it's an opposite sex union.
If it's not really possible, then it should not be possible. I do not have clear views on this"
Why are they going after yet another group they have no idea about?