Consideration

16 Sep

I wrote this now, between books, so it may be a little outdated. The basic principle still stands, though.

Let me start with an observation and move on from there.

If Joe visits Peggy’s house and lights a cigarette without asking permission, he’s a jerk.

If Peggy visit’s Joe’s house and starts complaining about the stench of cigarettes, she’s a jerk.

The issue with both examples is that neither one is showing any consideration for the other. Joe is stinking up Peggy’s house; Peggy is complaining about what Joe does in the privacy of his own home. There’s nothing stopping Joe from lighting up outside the house and Peggy doesn’t have to visit Joe’s house.

In short, what we have is a failure to show consideration.

Now, consideration is one of those words that has been hijacked by the liberals and twisted into something very different to its original meaning. They tend to take consideration to mean that one must not only consider someone else’s point of view, but automatically accept it as valid. The endless debate over trigger warnings is fuelled by the belief that consideration for the student’s feelings must automatically lead to a revision of course material so that the student’s delicate little feelings aren’t hurt.

But the triggered student is himself not showing consideration. If someone happens to be scared of … well, dogs, they don’t really have a right to complain if they sign up for a course on the care and feeding of British Bulldogs. Demanding that all dogs be removed from the classroom is the behaviour of a jerk.

This leads to the latest battleground in the Culture Wars – Hillsboro High School, Missouri.

To summarise the story, a 17-year-old pre-op transgender teen (male to female) has demanded the right to change in the girls’ bathroom and locker room – with the girls. It didn’t seem to occur to him/her that the girls (let alone their parents) would object to sharing a changing room with someone who was biologically a male. And, when the inevitable protests rolled in, he/she went on the offensive and said:

“I am a girl. I am not going to be pushed away to another bathroom.”

The problem with this is that she failed to show consideration to the girls – the girls she considers to be her fellows. It was predicable that the girls would be uneasy changing in front of a male – or, at least, someone with male parts – and it was equally predicable that their parents would be outraged.

And yet he/she had no problem in insisting on something she knew would meet opposition.

The school offered her a unisex changing room. He/she insisted on being allowed to use the girls’ changing room. This put the school administrators in a horrible position. If they were seen as discriminating against transgender pupils, they’d be in trouble; lawsuits would be filed, their reputations would be destroyed and people would lose their jobs. But, at the same time, if they agreed to allow her to use the girls’ changing room, they would outrage both the girls and their parents and probably wind up in trouble anyway.

In short, he/she showed no consideration to the school administrators either.

I’m not going to get into an argument about the precise gender of this individual. I, quite simply, don’t care what someone does, as long as they avoid hurting non-consenting others. The point here is that being different sometimes carries a price and that there are limits to how far others can go to accommodate you. Do the rights of one person actually supersede the rights of another? Does a person who fails to show any consideration deserve any consideration himself?

This is not, of course, a comfortable question.

What I think is happening here, at least to some extent, is a desire for acceptance and approval – and a complete lack of concern over how this acceptance and approval comes to pass. Those who are, for whatever reason, excluded from the community want to be accepted, even if it means forcing themselves on the community. A schoolboy who is bullied and excluded by his peers, for whatever reason, might find a teacher who insists that he be allowed to take part in the games. The pain of being rejected constantly, for whatever reason, makes it hard to care about the pain felt by others. Why should they, they ask themselves, when no one ever gave a damn about their feelings?

That is, in some ways, a slanted example. It’s hard not to look at it and feel sorry for the schoolboy, even though he might have been excluded for a very good reason. (When I was at school, there was a younger boy who just ruined every game he played until no one would play with him willingly.) A handful of other examples are far more dangerous. Gay rights advocates wanted gay scoutmasters – and refused to grant any consideration to the feelings of the parents, who viewed this with very little enthusiasm.

In the end, those who fail to show consideration have no consideration shown to them.

Advertisements

27 Responses to “Consideration”

  1. Bill Wolf September 16, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

    Awesome point of view! It’s rare for anyone to stand up and say we’ve had enough of political correctness. I’m not saying we should be purposely offensive but when did stating “our” own beliefs become such a negative situation. Like you mentioned with the school administrators they were put in a no win situation.

    • R Godfrey September 16, 2015 at 6:53 pm #

      False equivalence, the gay scoutmaster is equivalent to saying that their should not be black scoutmasters because some parents object, the pre-op was, however, offered a fair compromise and could genuinely caused discomfort for reasons that had nothing to do with being bought up hating people because of a book, that if followed would leave the world knee deeps in raped and murdered children.

      • Dennis the Menace September 16, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

        Entirely false BS on your part:

        Boy Scouts are a private organization that is purely voluntary to join.

        Schools are not. They are technically government agencies that are mandatory for minors to attend and taxpayers to pay for via the threat of government force for those who do not.

      • MishaBurnett September 16, 2015 at 9:17 pm #

        No, I think that saying that there should not be gay male scoutmasters for boy scouts is equivalent to saying that there should not be straight male scoutmasters for girl scouts. I think that parents have a legitimate reason to object to both. For that matter, I wouldn’t want my pre-teen son out in the woods camping with an adult woman, either.

  2. Glen Romero September 16, 2015 at 7:41 pm #

    On some things you rant about I share a common side with you. On this however we differ quite a bit. Consideration is something that is lacked by not just liberals, but conservatives. Keeping with you LGBT theme lets look at Kim Davis. A woman who by not being considerate of the states laws, is imposing her own beliefs on the LGBT community. Her situation is a slippery slop because as an elected official she is imposing her religious beliefs on her county.

    To address your original rant your use of he/she shows your lack of understanding on what is going on. It shows that you’re unwilling to address the actual question “Is the child in question a boy or girl?” Yes biologically she is a boy, Yes she was given an option to use a different changing room after gym class. That option may seem reasonable to someone that doesn’t understand the alienation that trans gendered people feel. I’m going to give you that some people, not all or most, take it too far and insist on using gender neutral pro-nouns for everything and that everyone use them. As the friend of not one but two trans gender people I have a different perspective. The option they gave her was the equivalent riding in the back of the bus. We don’t live in a black and white world, there is no one size fits all solution for this. Is the family pushing to hard maybe, but are the families reacting out of ignorance and religious bias, probably.

    The truth here is that we only know what the media is telling us and nothing more. I was on a deployment to Bosnia to a NATO base during the holiday season of 2000, I was with my roommate, Dutch Air Force, at a pub on the base when one of the many Iraqi air strikes happened. It was on the TV that the US had just bombed some building or another. This Danish woman see the flag on my uniform and started demanding to know why Americans felt the need to bomb anything they felt the need. Her words were stronger and more numerous but you get the image. My roommate was going to jump in when I signaled him to let her finish. When she demanded an answer I told her about all the things the Iraqi government did every day that was consider aggressive behavior that was forbidden to them. Things like radar locking our Aircraft with SAMS, fly their fighter in the no-fly zones, attacking people that are from a different faith. All of which was never aired because it didn’t sell. She apologizes after for her outbreak and someone there bought me a beer for my troubles. The point being is that unless your there watching the whole thing unfold you don’t know enough to make a sweeping statement like you just did.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard September 16, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

      “are the families reacting out of ignorance and religious bias, probably”.

      Yep, make it a “black and white” issue by claiming the objectors are bigots. [Frown]

    • MishaBurnett September 16, 2015 at 9:21 pm #

      I’ll address the issue. The child in question is a boy. He may feel like a girl, or he may feel like a mermaid or he may feel like a magical flying unicorn. It doesn’t matter. For the purposes of segregating restrooms, if you have a penis, you use the male’s restroom.

      • Glen Romero September 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

        And that is the reason some many trans people are depressed. They have to deal with people thinking the way you do. Gender even biological gender is not black and white. There are people born with varying degrees of both genders, how do you treat them? Like that female track star that was determined to be in part biologically male, because she had internal testicles instead of ovaries? If it’s external feature determine gender how about men with fully developed breasts and a penis?

      • MishaBurnett September 16, 2015 at 10:27 pm #

        Well, I might be better able to accept the existence of trans-persons if there was evidence that gender reassignment surgery actually helped the patients. The clinical, scientific evidence is that surgical modification has a very poor prognosis. That is because gender identity disorder is a mental illness, one a number of body identity disorders, and treating the symptom doesn’t deal with the underlying problem.

        And before you start accusing me of being sexistracisthomophobictransphobicnazi, ask yourself what is more important to you–that a person who suffers from gender identity get the therapy that is best able to help that person live a happy and healthy life, or proving some point about gender.

    • chrishanger September 16, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

      To be honest, I agree with you about Kim Davis – there is a difference between public and private institutions and she had a duty to follow the law of the land, which included issuing gay marriage licences. (Personally, I am firmly of the belief you shouldn’t need a marriage licence regardless of your sexuality, but that’s beside the point.) If she felt unable to uphold the law of the land, she should have resigned. It’s as simple as that.

      I should probably write another rant on that topic.

      That said, I do have plenty of experience with alienation despite being neither gay or transgender. I would have sold my soul for permission to use a private changing room at school. In this case, however, accommodating one student made a great many others incredibly uncomfortable. Now, this person may feel like a girl, but he/she doesn’t look like one and certainly doesn’t have female parts. The school needed to strike a balance between two separate sets of concerns.

      Comparing this to segregated buses misses the point. A died-in-the-wool racist could easily refuse to get on the buses, if he felt unable to sit next to a black person. Schoolchildren – male or female – do not have the option of declining gym class.

      Calling the families ignorant bigots is not remotely helpful. A person who sees a male will automatically class him as a male, regardless of whether he is straight or gay. I do not remotely blame the girls for feeling uncomfortable or their parents for being outraged.

      Chris

      My Site: http://www.chrishanger.net/
      My Blog: https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/
      My Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherGNuttall

      • Glen Romero September 17, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

        For the record I want to point out 2 thinks. First even after being told the proper pronoun for transgender people are their associated sex, in this case her/she, you still use the the term he/she. Second I never say bigot. You can be bias towards something and still not be a bigot. I bias towards somethings as are most people whether their willing to admit it or not. I’m bias against Tom Cruise in general, so far that I refuse to see any of his movies. For the record on that it has nothing to do with his religion/cult, it has to do with how he treated fans of his one of them being my friends mother.

        Part of the problem with the transgender community is that most people still view them as having a mental problem. In order for some one to be considered to the big surgery they have to have gone through counseling by specialist to verify they don’t have a mental disorder. The issue they face is that not all people are transgender look like models and pass perfectly for their sex. They look like someone dressing like they are the opposite “sex”. A women in men clothes, or a guy in a dress. People treat them like that. It takes a toll on you for people to contently call you sir or ma’am. My youngest son is short, has longer hair, and a soft voice, people frequently call him ma’am or miss. It doesn’t always bother him but some days it really does. Imagine dealing with that day in and day out. Having people laugh at you, less often but it does happen.

      • chrishanger September 17, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

        I’m not going to get drawn into an argument about the proper gender pronoun for a TG person – frankly, I don’t know if a TG woman should be called ‘she’, because biologically he/she isn’t female (they can’t have children, for example.) There are quite a few ethical issues here – should a TG woman declare herself to be such when she starts dating?

        However, in this case, we simply don’t have a pronoun. Neither ‘he’ nor ‘she’ quite fit and ‘it’ is flatly rude.

        The issue at hand is not if the person in question has a mental problem or not. The issue at hand is: does her desire to change in a female changing room trump the understandable desire of everyone else not to change in the same room as a person who is biologically male even if he/she identifies as female?

        Chris

        My Site: http://www.chrishanger.net/
        My Blog: https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/
        My Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherGNuttall

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard September 17, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

        I spent my school life (through High School) as the “chosen victim” of Bullies. IMO these “Liberals” have chosen to be the Bullies and they have the support of the State in their bullying.

      • Glen Romero September 17, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

        I can only hope you learn to understand the pain some people go through to be themselves. There is a link provided below to a story about the issue at the heart of this. I understand it only represents onside and doesn’t give a complete picture of the issue like all media. The interesting part is the last paragraph.

        Biology is only part of gender. Does in your last example of no being able to have children mean that someone is “male”. I know a few “women” that can’t have children. Let’s go back to the athlete that has testicles instead of ovaries? Is she “male” and forced to use the men’s room. How are intersexed individuals to be treated.

        On the matter of the girl’s room I’m actually neutral because I think the situation for her will be worse emotionally then if she just kept using the teachers bathroom. Is it a prefect solution for this situation not at all. A good question is when she is post op will she be allowed to use the girl’s room. Would she be allowed to use it if she got her birth certificate changed to say female?

        Let’s not forget about conservatives being “bullies”. A law that is REP are trying to pass is that you can only use the bathroom of your birth certificate. It allows students to actually sue the school. Imagine the how much fun that will be for confused kids. There is a whole different subset of people that like to wear the clothes of the opposite sex but still identify with their biological sex. So much so that there are business that design lingerie for men in Australia.

        http://time.com/3734714/transgender-bathroom-bills-lgbt-discrimination/

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard September 17, 2015 at 6:47 pm #

        Yep, when you use the power of the State to “get your way”, it’s OK but if the “other side” does it, it’s BAD.

        When you show a lack of “Consideration” for people who’s beliefs different than yours and attempt to use the power of the State to “force your beliefs onto others”, don’t be surprised when other people use the power of the State to defend themselves.

      • chrishanger September 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

        I can sympathise with someone who feels different – I’ve felt different myself. However, the problem here is not what gender he/she happens to think he/she is, but how society should react to it and what meaningful adjustments can be made without upsetting others.

        Chris

        My Site: http://www.chrishanger.net/
        My Blog: https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/
        My Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherGNuttall

  3. Dennis the Menace September 16, 2015 at 8:14 pm #

    Back in the ’70s, William F. Buckley summed up the situation with the Left quite accurately:

    “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

    Nowadays, it has to be modified to read as such:

    “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are either shocked and offended to discover that there are other views or they deliberately don’t give a damn even if they are aware of the other views that could be in conflict with theirs.”

    At the organized political level, ramming through ObamaCare — both in doing so despite not having any bipartisan support (unlike they had for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and CHiP, etc.) and HOW they did so and continue to do so — is a perfect example. Another one is how they had thugs actually threaten bondholders in the General Motors bankruptcy case because they needed them to give up their creditor rights in order for the unions to be saved.

    The result is that the Rule of Law in America has been soo trashed over the last 7 years that the Left will be in for a rude shock when conservatives regain power and use the outcome of that to dish out the same medicine to them. This is the road to tyranny — especially for nations with presidential systems of government (see: Latin America, political history thereof)

    What Chris has described is the same process at the individual and micro levels of our society, which is where this poison both starts and signals where we will be at the national politics level within a few years later.

    We’re screwed.

    • Glen Romero September 16, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

      When GM was going under, as much the fault of mismanagement and the unions they want the unions to accept huge cuts in pay and benefits. The unions offered to take everything offered to them with one clause, that management take the same cuts to pay and benefits. Management refused to take the cuts. Don’t blame the unions for all the problems behind a business issues. There is a reason unions came to be.

      The last time conservatives had the white house they left the country in a big mess because they deregulated companies some much they were allowed to run free and banks collapsed paying their CEO’s golden parachutes for doing nothing but giving bonuses to people that did nothing to better the business.

      You are right we are screwed as long as we accept politicians that would rather fight with each other then work together to the betterment of all Americans.

      • Dennis the Menace September 16, 2015 at 9:50 pm #

        “unions they want the unions to accept huge cuts in pay and benefits. The unions offered to take everything offered to them with one clause, that management take the same cuts to pay and benefits. Management refused to take the cuts. Don’t blame the unions for all the problems behind a business issues. There is a reason unions came to be.”

        Nothing about any of that has anything to do with the established and legal order of precedence for creditors in a bankruptcy. Bondholders always come first. Everyone else come after that.

        This had nothing to do with management or how GM got into the mess that it did. Obama & Crooks didn’t send thugs to management, the sent them to the bondholders.

        If bondholder’s rights had been protected as per the law, then GM would no longer exist and the unions and their workers would also be toast. Hence why Obama had his thugs threaten the bondholders to back off and twisted the law to screw over those who refused to bend over.

        “Most people simply don’t realize that the bailout of GM wasn’t a bailout of the company. It wasn’t a bailout of its shareholders, who lost everything… or its bondholders, who lost almost everything. Where did the money go? To the union. The United Auto Workers (UAW) ended up with all the money. ”

        http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law

        Educate yourself some more on this here:

        http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/gm-auto-industry-personal-finance-guru-insight-obama-bankruptcy.html

        http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/07/gm_bankruptcy_changes_business.html

        “Don’t blame the unions for all the problems behind a business issues.”

        I didn’t. Pay attention. Reading Comprehension Skills matter.

        “The last time conservatives had the white house they left the country in a big mess because they deregulated companies some much they were allowed to run free and banks collapsed paying their CEO’s golden parachutes for doing nothing but giving bonuses to people that did nothing to better the business.”

        Yet more left wing ranting totally devoid of any connection to what is being discussed.

        “You are right we are screwed as long as we accept politicians that would rather fight with each other then work together to the betterment of all Americans.”

        No, we are screwed because of the blatant disregard for the Rule of Law by all three branches of government.

        Nope. More reading comprehension skill problems on your part.

  4. Gary F. York September 16, 2015 at 10:59 pm #

    My first inclination was to offer a heartfelt, “Well said!”

    And it was! Yet, on further reflection, it seems to me that the difficulty lies in the ambiguity created by (so called) “public property.”

    In your initial examples, ones own property vs. someone else’s property, it was perfectly clear who is failing in ‘consideration.’ More precisely, I think, it’s a question of who gets to exercise control. Who gets to ‘make the rules?’ Who gets admitted to the property; who gets excluded? What is permitted; what is not? And what facilities are provided, to whom, by whom, when and under what conditions?

    Within reasonable bounds, with private property, the owner makes the rules. In your Missouri case, had the school in question been private, the only real question would be, “Is the kid owed a refund?” MAYBE the owner would consider the question, “Are there enough transgendered kids with these kind of issues that it would be worth my while to invest in a special school?

    There’s an issue because the city presumes to levy property taxes on everyone to support the public schools, whether or not they or their kids use those schools. Theoretically, everyone who pays those taxes should have some ‘say’ in how they are used. And everyone who has kids of school age should be entitled to have their kids schooled.

    Yet practically, there is always the potential for misfits: kids too far below the intelligence curve that they can’t be well served by ‘regular’ instruction; kids too far above that curve that boredom is a constant companion. If the community is large enough that the population of those requiring ‘exceptional’ treatment can be adequately served all is good. If not? Well. Too bad, you know?

    Numbers matter. There are people dying, often, of medical conditions that are so very rare that the afflicted population is presently too small to warrant the effort to try for a cure or a palliative.

    It’s not fair that some people, by any reasonable standard good people, have to bear that burden. Some people are killed, every day, in accidents that are entirely NOT THEIR FAULT! That’s not fair!

    Some of us are born ugly, deformed, tone-deaf, autistic, uncoordinated, unathletic, unmusical, or whatever. That’s not fair either. Yet we’re generally obliged to play the hand we’re dealt.

    But, you know, life isn’t — fair. We don’t generally have the right or ability to control what others think of us, whether they offer to associate with or befriend us, or whether they utterly reject us. We can’t require them to understand us, love us or pity us. Nor can others do so to us. (And that’s a good thing!)

    In that really small town in Missouri, where numbers also matter, many seem to be trying, perhaps even harder than they really should, to be considerate.

    G.

  5. duncancairncross September 16, 2015 at 11:56 pm #

    I agree with you here,
    There is spectrum between bullying and behaving in an acceptable manner,

    The kid who is not played with – may be because of bad past behaviour or because of bullying,
    The two merge together,

    The cigaret smoker who lights up in the living room – to the one who goes outside and drops ash or fag ends in the garden – to the one who takes all of his mess away with him

    The US idea of “consideration” relies too much on the POV of the person being offended

    In some ways this is an overreaction to what went before and still happens now
    Did you see those videos of a pretty woman walking around US cities?

  6. Baden Frostrune September 18, 2015 at 3:20 am #

    First, liberals are not the only political creatures that show lack of consideration. I’d really appreciate discussions that treat issues on their merits, rather than on whether President Obama or Fox News supports them.

    Second, we in this country are still fighting the culture wars, and they are not being fought by rational, considerate discussion (for the most part). The culture wars are being fought by demonstrations and political theater and civil disobedience and talking heads and by billionaires buying “educational” ads on TV that are anything but.

    If the kid is trying to make a political statement, let’s not be surprised that the statement is “in your face” and offensive and inconsiderate. That’s how society is currently training the next generation for political discourse.

    If the kid is trying to make a statement of self-determination and independence, well, it amounts to about the same thing as a political statement. Immature humans (those under 25) don’t necessarily know what is really “good for them” or considerate of others or good for society as a whole. (Nor do all mature humans, sigh.)

    I suspect Chris and most others in this discussion would prefer a society where kids are enabled to make lots of mistakes, but in a way that allows them to learn from their mistakes, rather than be allowed to hold stupid, inconsiderate or self-deluding ideas into adulthood where they use them to cause automobile accidents or trigger wars or kill themselves and others.

    So, to the situation under discussion. We disagree with the kid’s request. Fine. My question is, will the kid (and others) learn from this inconsiderate request? Will it get compared and contrasted with the “inconsiderate” black woman with feet sore from working all day, who refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a public bus (or other skirmishes in the culture wars)? (Maybe a few similarities, but not really in the same league, though many whites in that culture really WERE as offended by uppity blacks, as are parents over a TG-kid-born-male using the girls’ locker room. Some educational opportunities there.)

    Now, what about the Board of Education (or whatever POLITICAL entity needs to decide what to do)? I suggest they have some responsibilities, most important, to make sure everyone learns from this situation (they are political, but also a board of EDUCATION). Learns that people disagree, that one person’s obvious answer is not obvious to another. That we set up a political process to handle hard issues (and even inconsiderate kids and adults). That people will make up their minds and join the discussion and be angry because all other people don’t agree with the truth they believe is obvious. That the TG kid in question might have a point or two, and the girls in the locker room and parents of all students might have a whole bunch of points on their side. That maybe there are other requests/demands the TG kids might make that might get as much political attention and raise potent cultural questions, but don’t force those born male into the girls’ locker and vice versa.

    If the Board of Education (or the State authority, or courts) force the school to allow the TG kid to use the girls’ locker, THAT’s when we get to be upset about how bad the political process is. But I’d also propose that we should hold the same Board accountable if they fail to turn this issue into a chance for everyone to learn something, including about how to have a civil political discussion and resolve inconvenient or inconsiderate or otherwise hard issues.

    • Dennis the Menace September 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

      “First, liberals are not the only political creatures that show lack of consideration. ”

      True. Just look at Donald Trump.

      Wait! The Donald IS a liberal.

      • Glen Romero September 18, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

        I really hope you’re just being a sarcastic, because it’s really hard to tell context in text. Because there are many instances of conservatives being inconsiderate. Let look are Mr. War hero John McCain. I’m not saying anything against his military service record, he served with honor and no one can take that away. His willingness to erode retiree benefits is a matter of public record. My healthcare costs have gone up because of his unwillingness to find ways to cut the military budget by getting rid for waste. The Army for example doesn’t want the M1A1 Abrams anymore because it was designed for a type of warfare that doesn’t exist anymore. The government said we are keeping it, even though the cost to refurbish them is more expensive then getting a new replacement. Lets get back to something closer to this issue of consideration. How about the bill that was proposed to change the terminology for rape. They wanted to change it from rape victim to rape accuser. Think about that one, what kind of message does that send. Men and women who have been raped are no longer victim of violent crimes but simply accuser. Was it considerate of conservatives to make law that defined marriage so that same sex couples can’t marry? Personnel I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business and just issue civil unions to couples and if they want to be “marriage” they can have a service in a house of worship of their choice. This would hopefully end the debate about that.

        A question for those parents out there. If your preschool male child was more comfortable in a girl clothes (dresses and what not), and playing with “girl” toys, would you let them? There is a father in Germany that lets his son wear a dress and will ware a dress with him so he wont feel uncomfortable.

    • chrishanger September 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

      True enough – particularly as bad ideas, picked up in childhood, can lead someone straight to prison in adulthood.

      Chris

      My Site: http://www.chrishanger.net/
      My Blog: https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/
      My Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherGNuttall

  7. Keith October 7, 2015 at 11:05 pm #

    What I find odd is that because the transgender person associates with the other gender we are supposed to ignore their natural gender in favor of their identified gender. But if someone associates themselves as black and chooses to live accordingly then that is wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves. Why the double standard?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: