|
Feb 17
2010
|
 |
 |
Much hype has been made over the newly introduced House bill, the Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010. We can take a look at the facts behind the bill to try to gain a deeper understanding of it. Implicit in the language of the bill are broad assumptions about the manner in which schools are to handle sexual orientation and gender identity issues. Some of Congress’s findings:
(1) Public school students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), or are perceived to be LGBT, or who associate with LGBT people, have been and are subjected to pervasive discrimination, including harassment, bullying, intimidation and violence, and have been deprived of equal educational opportunities, in schools in every part of our Nation.
(2) While discrimination, including harassment, bullying, intimidation and violence, of any kind is harmful to students and to our education system, actions that target students based on sexual orientation or gender identity represent a distinct and especially severe problem.
The mainstream American view differs – parents believe they should be able to discuss these contentious issues privately with their children. Especially when questions of morality exist, as they do here, parents reserve the right to educate their children according to their own values.
In fact, the bill does not represent Americans and their principles. The sponsor and all 65 of the cosponsors are Democrats, proving the highly partisan nature of the legislation. Americans should evaluate this partial list of groups who endorse the bill:
American Civil Liberties Union, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders), GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, and Transgender Law Center.
Clearly, this bill comes from a radical sector of the country, trying to impose its own view of the educational system upon all Americans.
Editor's note: A spokesperson for the White House also expressed support of the bill.
Share This
Email this
Hits: 2423
Comments (12)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
written by BMG, March 17, 2010
written by BMG, March 17, 2010
Are you suggesting that it is ok to harass kids if they are gay or if they seem gay? Surely, harassment and discrimination is not a value anyone is actively invested in supporting. In most churches, "hate the sin and not the sinner" is common practice. When we are talking about children, we are most likely talking about young people who are not even sexually active yet. If we endorse discrimination, then who would they be getting support from but the gay community? No kid should be harassed or discriminated against.
-
- +5
-
-
...
written by Thomas Peters, March 17, 2010
written by Thomas Peters, March 17, 2010
We absolutely do not believe it is "OK" to harass kids based on their homosexual orientation, but we also submit that it is wrong to indoctrinate children contrary to the rights of their parents to discuss these sensitive issues with them.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by Mike, March 17, 2010
written by Mike, March 17, 2010
I guess I missed the part in the bill, where it instructs the schools on how to indoctrinate children! Its about protecting kids!!
-
- +4
-
-
...
written by Thomas Peters, March 18, 2010
written by Thomas Peters, March 18, 2010
I'd invite you to visit www.preserveinnocence.org to find out more. I'll also try to post more material here.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Timothy Whittle, March 18, 2010
written by Timothy Whittle, March 18, 2010
I would also encourage you to read a follow-up post on this topic. I discussed the practical implications of a bill of this nature, citing a current situation in the state government of Maine.
Here is the link:
http://www.americanprinciplesp...hy+Whittle
Here is the link:
http://www.americanprinciplesp...hy+Whittle
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Jimmie Winburn, April 12, 2010
written by Jimmie Winburn, April 12, 2010
I read you blog about the implications of the non-discrimination bill and it seems to me to be the same old "slippery-slope" argument that conservatives have used for seventy years to justify bigotry, i.e. whether a bill is a good idea has nothing to do with the provisions of the bill itself. It is bad if some could use it as a springboard for introducing a more radical bill.
-
- +2
-
-
...
written by Timothy Whittle, April 13, 2010
written by Timothy Whittle, April 13, 2010
There is no slippery slope here. The Maine example clearly shows the intentions of the bill in Congress and where it will go if enacted. It is imprudent to read the language of any bill without understanding who is lobbying for it, which Congressmen are co-sponsoring it, and the real impact that similar bills in various state legislatures have had.
Before supporting this bill, consider whether you support what the legislation in Maine has introduced, including policies where "a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa."
The phrasing of this bill is often applied to deceptively encourage affirmation or promotion of LGBT lifestyles within schools. These policies are outside of mainstream American values, and inconsistent with traditional moral principles.
Before supporting this bill, consider whether you support what the legislation in Maine has introduced, including policies where "a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa."
The phrasing of this bill is often applied to deceptively encourage affirmation or promotion of LGBT lifestyles within schools. These policies are outside of mainstream American values, and inconsistent with traditional moral principles.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by linkkb, April 18, 2010
written by linkkb, April 18, 2010
The term "Slippery Slope" (or in psychology, "foot in the door") refers to the idea that allowing one act (IE the bill before congress) will allow another larger/less desirable act to occur (IE the Maine bill). This is very clearly your intention in mentioning a piece of Maine state legislature in regards to an unaffiliated federal bill.
I will not address my specific misgivings regarding your criticisms of the Maine bill here, but you seem to be implying that because LD 1196 was approved in the state of Maine 5 years ago, the H.R.4530 bill will de facto contain the Maine legislation's characteristics that you found objectionable. Your assertion that the house of congress will include the exact same rights as unaffiliated state-based legislature is purely speculation, and clearly an attempt to smear a legitimate anti-discrimination measure.
(Which, may I add, Americans are clearly in support of- at least 85% support anti-discrimination measures in the workplace.)
I will not address my specific misgivings regarding your criticisms of the Maine bill here, but you seem to be implying that because LD 1196 was approved in the state of Maine 5 years ago, the H.R.4530 bill will de facto contain the Maine legislation's characteristics that you found objectionable. Your assertion that the house of congress will include the exact same rights as unaffiliated state-based legislature is purely speculation, and clearly an attempt to smear a legitimate anti-discrimination measure.
(Which, may I add, Americans are clearly in support of- at least 85% support anti-discrimination measures in the workplace.)
-
- +3
-
-
...
written by Timothy Whittle, April 20, 2010
written by Timothy Whittle, April 20, 2010
The slippery slope argument is only a logical fallacy if no causal link is shown between one action and another. You are accusing me of showing absolutely no link between the bill in Congress, H.R. 4530, and the bill in Maine. I'd like to return the discussion to the principles of the two bills, and how those principles might be put into practice.
The Maine bill is an "anti-discrimination" bill that established the Maine Human Rights Commission, which in this situation claims to simply "clarify a law that has been on the books for five years." If the commission really is just clarifying the law, then that law actually guarantees transgender students "access to public school bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams based on whatever gender they consider themselves to be." Plenty of people are upset with this, because parents do not want their high school-age daughters to be stuck showering with an 18 year old guy, simply because the guy identifies as a girl.
There is a legitimate concern that any bill authored with the intent to protect transgender students from discrimination would allow them to use opposite-sex bathrooms and locker rooms. If we believe that transgeneder people have certain "rights," then the right to use a bathroom or locker room would definitely be one of the most important rights to fight for. If you accept the transgender logic, forcing a boy who identifies as a girl to use the boys' bathroom would qualify as discrimination based on biological sex.
Because the bill in Congress is vague, we must assume that the "right" for transgender people to use opposite-sex bathrooms and locker rooms could definitely be applied. If the bill did not allow for this "right," it would not have received support from groups like GLSEN and the National Center for Transgender Equality.
If you believe that transgeder boys should be allowed to shower in girls' locker rooms and use their bathrooms, that is a different discussion for a different time. But the large number of Americans who do not support this transgender "right" should oppose this bill.
The Maine bill is an "anti-discrimination" bill that established the Maine Human Rights Commission, which in this situation claims to simply "clarify a law that has been on the books for five years." If the commission really is just clarifying the law, then that law actually guarantees transgender students "access to public school bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams based on whatever gender they consider themselves to be." Plenty of people are upset with this, because parents do not want their high school-age daughters to be stuck showering with an 18 year old guy, simply because the guy identifies as a girl.
There is a legitimate concern that any bill authored with the intent to protect transgender students from discrimination would allow them to use opposite-sex bathrooms and locker rooms. If we believe that transgeneder people have certain "rights," then the right to use a bathroom or locker room would definitely be one of the most important rights to fight for. If you accept the transgender logic, forcing a boy who identifies as a girl to use the boys' bathroom would qualify as discrimination based on biological sex.
Because the bill in Congress is vague, we must assume that the "right" for transgender people to use opposite-sex bathrooms and locker rooms could definitely be applied. If the bill did not allow for this "right," it would not have received support from groups like GLSEN and the National Center for Transgender Equality.
If you believe that transgeder boys should be allowed to shower in girls' locker rooms and use their bathrooms, that is a different discussion for a different time. But the large number of Americans who do not support this transgender "right" should oppose this bill.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by Dan, June 21, 2010
written by Dan, June 21, 2010
People used the same justification of unisex bathrooms to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment which solely opposed discrimination on the basis of gender.
ERA Text:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification
Now I don't see anywhere in there were it remotely mentions bathrooms, but if the SNDA does make mention of the issue of bathrooms, then I will gladly withdraw my claim.
And while I think there is a discussion to be had on this issue, I think that you still need to consider the fact that the purpose of this bill is to prevent discrimination against our students. Students can still retain whatever religious beliefs they want or their parents teach them, but that doesn't mean that we should allow them to express those beliefs in an aggressive and hurtful way in what is supposed to be a safe and nurturing, educational environment.
ERA Text:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification
Now I don't see anywhere in there were it remotely mentions bathrooms, but if the SNDA does make mention of the issue of bathrooms, then I will gladly withdraw my claim.
And while I think there is a discussion to be had on this issue, I think that you still need to consider the fact that the purpose of this bill is to prevent discrimination against our students. Students can still retain whatever religious beliefs they want or their parents teach them, but that doesn't mean that we should allow them to express those beliefs in an aggressive and hurtful way in what is supposed to be a safe and nurturing, educational environment.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by Betty, July 14, 2010
written by Betty, July 14, 2010
I spent some time in an (adult) women's shelter run by the Catholic Church - and "transgender" individuals were allowed to live and/or visit there. This meant sharing group showers, too! I found the situation very uncomfortable, especially since these MEN looked like men and nobody checked to see if they still had male "equipment". It was quite a shock to see obvious males in the women's areas. I don't see why almost a hundred women should be forced to accommodate several delusional males. And doesn't anyone see the implications of this kind of thing in high schools and intermediate schools? Any curious, mischievous or just plain horny young guy could claim he was feeling kind of feminine today and demand access to the girls' locker rooms ! I have already signed a petition against this bill. I'm not normally Republican or very conservative, but this is a matter of common sense.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by Jenna, July 21, 2010
written by Jenna, July 21, 2010
Who are you to say who is "delusional" and who is not? People with much more professional authority than yourself have determinded that transexuality is not a mental disorder and is a normal variation in human sexuality. Just because you don't understand it does not make it out of the realm of normality. If we allow people to take away the rights of those they consider (for no scientific reason) "delusional", abnormal, inferior, etc. the entire fabric of human rights will dissolve and everyone, even you, will be in jeopardy of being discriminated against. Have some compassion and understanding for your fellow human beings.
-
- +1
-
-
Write comment
