
If a middle school in Northern California had on its events schedule a cross-dressing, gender-shift day encouraging children to attire themselves as a member of the opposite sex, wouldn't you expect liberal media members across the fruited plain to be all over the story?
Yet, according to Google News and LexisNexis searches, not one press outlet, including those near the situation in California, thought this matter was at all newsworthy.
Fortunately, as announced Tuesday by the Pacific Justice Institute, the event was canceled (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Bill):
Following parent complaints, a middle school on the outskirts of the Bay Area has reversed course and canceled a cross-dressing or "gender switch" day.
The mother of a seventh-grade student at Adams Middle School was alarmed when she heard that on the last day of the school's "Spirit Week," students were being encouraged to dress like the opposite sex. Perhaps even more disturbingly, parents were given virtually no advance notice from the school and found out about the event after flyers were posted throughout the campus. When this parent met with the principal to express her concerns, she was told the event would continue this Friday as planned, and she could keep her son home from school if he did not want to participate. The parent contacted Pacific Justice Institute on Monday, which advised her on enlisting other parents' support and communicating with the school. PJI also began laying the groundwork to hold the school accountable to the public if it did not reverse course by Tuesday.In a 180-degree turnaround, the flyers posted about the gender switch day had disappeared by Tuesday morning, and the school confirmed that the event had been canceled. The school is now encouraging students to wear school colors on Friday. Parents expressed relief that their middle-school students would not be pressured to cross-dress or be subjected to a sexually-charged school environment.
The reader should be advised that middle school in California means sixth through eighth grades. My daughter entered such a school at the age of eleven.
Would you like your eleven-year-old to be encouraged to cross-dress?
Yet, what makes this story even more fascinating - and the media's boycott more confusing - is this school isn't anywhere near San Francisco, Berkeley, or Marin.
Brentwood until recently was a farm/bedroom community fifty miles inland from San Francisco which prior to the recent growth explosion in this area had a population of only 9,000 in 1990.
As real estate in communities more proximate to the Bay Area employment centers such as San Francisco, Oakland, and Silicon Valley became too expensive, Brentwood experienced a population boom bringing its residents total to 40,000 in 2005.
Unlike many towns in Northern California, two-thirds of the adult population is actually married, and the incidence of divorce in the community shockingly low. The residents are also mostly white collar, with an average household income of almost $100,000 per year.
With that in mind, Brentwood is by no means the epitome of a liberal, Northern California town. Quite the contrary. As such, the lack of attention given to this fascinating story - even by Bay Area media - is quite confusing.
After all, depending on your political leaning, it would be easy to make this town a poster-child either for rampant homophobia in the suburbs, or growing tolerance for sexual-preference discussions in our public schools.
Think about it.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Canceled, for now
November 4, 2007 - 12:18 ET by ThisnThatWhat are the school teachers, administrators, and principals being taught these days? And what kind of standards are being met by "Education Graduates"?
I have talked and listened to many new teachers, and am appalled at their attitudes. They all want social experimentation, and they all act like Stepford Wives when it comes to PC conformity.
The community is not entirely at fault, here. It's the social education reformers who are mascurading as teachers and school administrators. They are being taught something that is very awful, and they seem to now have the courage to enforce this on our school children.
One final factor is the ACLU and the Teacher's Union. These two powerful forces will aid and abet these social experiments all over the country.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
NEA Extremists
November 4, 2007 - 17:53 ET by NoMoreClintons"the Teacher's Union"
That would be the extreme left-leaning National Education Association (NEA) and their local chapters.
so many of these students
November 6, 2007 - 14:25 ET by TruthMongerso many of these students can't seem to read well, do basic math, find states or countries on a map, explain basic US government concepts or history, name major leaders from the present - let alone the past
but
at least
they can
cross-dress
Partner with Islam and the NB respect police:)
Noel,
November 4, 2007 - 12:23 ET by Blonde"the fruited plain"?
You're killing me. I'm going to have to nominate you to receive the "Noel Sheppard Turn of Phrase Award" for that one.
I am laughing so hard, I didn't even finish your blog, just got to the end of that first para & lost it.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, that's a great
November 4, 2007 - 22:57 ET by motherbeltBlonde, that's a great phrase, but Rush has been using it for ages.
Unless there's a double entendre there, but it didn't look like it to
me. Now if he'd said California was the "fruited plain"......
Or is this just WAY too subtle for me at 11 PM?
mb
November 4, 2007 - 23:00 ET byCalifornia is the land of fruits and nuts
nothing plain about it
GoHunter08
ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!!!!
November 4, 2007 - 12:36 ET by JohnMWhose idea was this? Is this person being held accountable? Was it someone inside the administration, or an outside group?
If it was an outside group, I would hope the parents are aware that, if a school allows expression of one side of a political issues, they are required to allow expression of the other sides. I know because I won a lawsuit against our very liberal district on a similar issue - it set a precedent.
Schools must not be allowed to slide one-sided political agendas into their activities. While I would like to see them free of politics, completely, I would be content with equal air-time.
But it requires that the parents remain vigilant, and get involved. And sometimes, when the masses can't see that their agenda is one-sided, it can be a painful experience to stand up and refuse to participate. But in the long run, the satisfaction of sticking to one's principles is greater than the comfort of avoiding being targeted by media and local jerks.
Don't let them silence your parental voices! Hold these people accountable!
</venting> (thanks for listening!)
Sodomite Recruiters
November 4, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Lame CherryI have been tracking this for some time in how homosexuals infiltrate sites to schools and initiate recruitment drives by sexualizing children to very troubled adults (people who have not had sound parental relationships, have been molested or have suffered dope rapes.).
The question in this Mr. Sheppard is if it is a horrid thing for military recruiters to be near schools, why is it not a horrid thing for these sexual predators to be recruiting emotionally and psychologically troubled children and adults.
To simply equate this as "tolerance training" is like having children dress up as rapists "so they too can understand what motivates a rapist".
That pretty well drives the point of how horrid this is home.
This is nothing by desynthesizing of morals. Dress up a child today as a sexual pervert who is not capable of dealing in a healthy way with their sexuality and at a party next week "a kissing trial is initiated"........and then with booze or dope the next month, the kid is raped and confused because he or she actually responds to sexual stimulation.
I have yet to have one homosexual explain in honesty, "Why is it one is "gay" immediately if one naturally responds as one would hooked up to a machine.........but yet if a rubber dildo is the device the person is not classified as a rubber tree by nature".
This predatory nonsense of sexualizing children by pedophiles requires this nation to drop the hammer. In studying the new crop of children on "rate me sites", the vast patrolling membership is all "bi sexual" and preying on other people to initate just like they were intitiated.
I do not use the word initiate lightly as that is exactly what is occurring and it is a cult or religious rite equal to the sodomite and fertility cults which God destroyed out of the Middle East. This will destroy the nation as there is no such person as a homosexual. There are only people who have been traumatized and in fear of the opposite gender or in warped stimuli deem themselves "homosexual". One does not deem rapists a "sexual class" as it is not a natural norm no more than homosexual choice is a natural norm in nature.
It is a covered up story now, but there is research out there which proved that rats in close confinement actually "turned homosexual" by being packed into too small of spaces. People who know beef cattle will see the same phenomina in feeder steers releasing sexual tendencies.
Homosexuals need treatment to deal with the incorrect "wiring" of stimuli they are inclined toward. One would not allow a drunk to fly a jet.......so when in a sexed up hype why would one agree that a non natural occurence should be condoned.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Your outrage is
November 4, 2007 - 13:01 ET by JasonCYour outrage is adorable.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Since Lame Cherry seldom responds, Jason, I will
November 4, 2007 - 13:16 ET by RJYour smarmy non-answer is adorable.
It's all conjecture,
November 4, 2007 - 13:28 ET by JasonCIt's all conjecture, exaggeration, and a sad little attempt to fit one minor incident at one school into a template for the ills of all public schools.
Show me where it says that:
a. Cross-dressing day is anything more than something that some goup of kids came up with as a funny, mildly subversive school spirit type thing.
b. It wasn't just a Halloween costume with a theme type day.
c. It was mandatory.
d. Kids who dress up for a theme day will be in any way compelled to repeat that behavior in their everyday lives (try the Journal of Childhood Development or one concerning childhood sexuality, it will be a fruitless search).
e. Cross-dressing is inherently sexual or tied to homosexuality (it's not, but Lame Cherry assumes it is).
Show me some of these things, and maybe I'll look at this incident as anything other than harmless, and perhaps even share in LC's bombastic outrage.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Hey, it's LC's argument, Jason
November 4, 2007 - 13:42 ET by RJAddress him.
I was only pointing out the adorable emptiness (and probably unpatriotic tenor) of your post.... ;^)
Well according to your
November 4, 2007 - 13:46 ET by JasonCWell according to your original post here, you've appointed yourself LC's official mouthpiece. I shouldn't have even had to post that list, the moment LC started talking about sodomites it was obvious he'd drifted into some much more complicated anathema than a silly dress-up day at a public school.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Comprehension problems, Jason?
November 4, 2007 - 13:56 ET by RJWhen did I appoint myself LC's mouthpiece? You have a habit of jumping to conclusions. I just pointed out that your post was adorably pointless.
You replied in his stead
November 4, 2007 - 13:59 ET by JasonCYou replied in his stead under the assumption that he wouldn't. And I replied. It's crystal clear.
Could you just once engage with something I've said, on this board or the other, instead of nitpicking about how I post or refusing an example because you know I already have an opinion? You're just taking up space.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"replied in his stead"
November 4, 2007 - 14:12 ET by RJLike I said, Jason, you like to assume, don't you? Once again, my post identified the adorable pointlessness of your post...nothing more. Do you really think I would EVER attempt to defend Lame Cherry? His posts often begin with good ideas, but then just as often wander off the range. lol!
LOL? Really?! OK fine,
November 4, 2007 - 14:17 ET by JasonCLOL? Really?!
OK fine, and I proceeded to give a more detailed explanation of my original brush-off remark, and then you criticized me for posting it in the wrong place, ie as if it were to you and not to LC. So what's the beef?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Sigh. This is boring, Jason
November 4, 2007 - 14:30 ET by RJYou responded directly to me with your detailed post, and I told you to talk to LC. All you had to do at that point was say, "ok, LC, what have you got to say?" or something similar.
Gosh, if you make such a big whining deal out of something as minor as this, I bet you're a ball to have around the house or at work.
Indeed it is boring, so
November 4, 2007 - 14:34 ET by JasonCIndeed it is boring, so let's stop now.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Don't bother, JasonC. This
November 4, 2007 - 14:35 ET by balboaDon't bother, JasonC. This is a new game RJ and Blonde play all the time.
Actually Bal, I'm having a
November 4, 2007 - 14:39 ET by JasonCActually Bal, I'm having a fun time seeing how long RJ can go without making a single argument or claim about the topic at hand. Got that little game going on here and on another board. So far, all it's been is whiny comments about how or where I post.
I'm surprised she hasn't declared herself "done with [me]."
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
As usual, bal has nothing pertinent to add
November 4, 2007 - 14:45 ET by RJ....just the usual leg humping.
...and deny it as you wish, Jason, I proved your argument wrong in my very first post. Now, you've been reduced to changing it in a forlorn attempt to keep some dignity.
BTW, "she?"....and if I say whining, you say whining?....so childish, Jason..... ;^)
JasonC
November 4, 2007 - 14:46 ET by balboaSee, JasonC?
Down, Boy
November 4, 2007 - 14:50 ET by RJDown, Boy...
Are you talking about the
November 4, 2007 - 14:48 ET by JasonCAre you talking about the gay marriage post? You didn't prove jack and you know it. the fact that I've made up my mind on an issue, taken a stance, does not nullify that stance. It's ludicrous for you to say so.
And now we're not even on the right blog, so why don't you start a woodshed column if you want to have a real debate. Otherwise, I don't know how many more times I can sit here and watch you fail to come up with one decent counter-argument. It's getting sad.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Thought you were leaving, Jason?
November 4, 2007 - 14:53 ET by RJ"turning off your computer and all that..."
(the equivalent of "I'm done with you", I believe)
Still trying to change your argument, and pretend you didn't say what you did, I see... haha
I'll stay if you point out
November 4, 2007 - 14:56 ET by JasonCI'll stay if you point out where in that post I changed my argument. This would have been a fun afternoon if you'd actually challenged my statements RJ. We could have had an intense conversation instead of bitching at each other for 2 hours. Hey, I tried.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Go back and read the thread, Jason
November 4, 2007 - 19:45 ET by RJI'm not your tutor.
Ooo, that's the clincher,
November 4, 2007 - 14:45 ET by balboaOoo, that's the clincher, isn't it? The almighty "I'm done with you." I see your point
down, boy
November 4, 2007 - 14:49 ET by RJit was Jason who threatened the "I'm done with you" phase.... ;^)
Now now, I was very careful
November 4, 2007 - 14:50 ET by JasonCNow now, I was very careful not to use those words.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
You didn't say you were leaving
November 4, 2007 - 14:54 ET by RJand turning off your computer? Come on, Jason, keep your stories straight....
Tell you what, Jason
November 4, 2007 - 14:57 ET by RJI do have to go. Actually, the posting was sort of amusing until the past few minutes, when you and bal went all childish. Don't forget to work on your "Patriotism"....
(This time, that means "go Boston") ;^)
Yes, JasonC, why can't we
November 4, 2007 - 14:59 ET by balboaYes, JasonC, why can't we be more mature, like RJ? It's vexing.
desperate for attention, bal?
November 4, 2007 - 19:35 ET by RJ...and, as usual, nothing valid to contribute....just the usual leg humping :^)
go Boston?
November 4, 2007 - 15:00 ET bythe beanpots??
GoHunter08
double
November 4, 2007 - 15:01 ET by;^)
Hey bot... Have you been
November 4, 2007 - 15:08 ET by bigtimerHey bot...
Have you been watching this Charger /Viking game?
Too much fun!
most cointaintly i posted
November 4, 2007 - 15:12 ET bymost cointaintly i posted on Cromarte's 109 yard 33 inch run.
GoHunter08
Hmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.
November 4, 2007 - 23:16 ET by Scout FinchHave you not watched Tila Tequila and the bisexual dating show on VH1?
Naw. They're not trying to make bisexuality look normal to our teens and tweens. Not at all.
Have you watched that show?
November 4, 2007 - 23:28 ET by balboaHave you watched that show? Nothing normal about it. Not sure if they're trying to do anything but expose the world to these freeeeeaks.
Where was the parental outrage?
November 4, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Dave RParents expressed relief that their middle-school students would not be pressured to cross-dress or be subjected to a sexually-charged school environment.
They expressed relief? How nice.
If these were real parents, they would have shown up at the school, demanded this insanity be cancelled immediately, and then loudly called for whichever brain-damaged government agent who cooked up this whole thing be fired. No, not just reprimanded, but fired on the spot.
It won't happen, but it should. As long as parents continue to be complacent, the worse our failed government schools are going to become.
Worse still will be that, tommorow morning, these same relieved parents are going to pack the most precious thing in their lives right back off to this exact same government school.
Read up on cross-dressing.
November 4, 2007 - 13:30 ET by JasonCRead up on cross-dressing. The vast majority of psychiatrists agree that it is not a sexual act. It's inaccurate to conflate gender ambiguity with sexuality.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason C, I am not interested in reading up on cross dressing.
November 4, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Dave RAs for the vast majority of psychiatrists (most of whom will bend over backwards to excuse any perversion there is, as most are liberal to beyond the point of being irresponsible) they themselves are no-doubt products of our failed government education system, and I could not care less what they have to say on any subject.
As for our failed government schools, instead of just providing condoms to eleven year-old girls, why not just provide these kids with a room to have sex in, too? I mean, if it is okay with stupid government agents (and that is what government school employees are) for kids this young to be doing this, then why should little Debbie and Little Johnnie be forced to sneak around? Clearly, linear logic dictates that this will be the next logical move, does it not?
Hate to tell you, pal, but this is the exact sort of self-destructive stupidity that is going to be the downfall of Western Society, which most of us here are probably going to live to see.
I have said it here many times, but it bears repeating:
The act of sending a child to a government school is nothing short of child abuse.
Fine, but don't act like
November 4, 2007 - 13:51 ET by JasonCFine, but don't act like you know something about it if you're unwilling to look beyond crass stereotypes.
Your Condoms > Rooms for Kids to Have Sex In argument is ridiculous, of course. By providing condoms for kids, they are helping to be sure that if the kids have sex, they won't spread disease or impregnate one another. With me so far? Giving them condoms is not enabling them to HAVE sex, it's enabling them to make it safer if they DO have sex. Do you think lack of access to condoms will stop them if they want to do it? And if you have a problem with the fact that kids that age are thinking about having sex at all, the blame lies as much with parents and mass pop culture - the latter of which is largely a result of cultural demand, the very fruition of your precious free market capitalism - as it does with the actual school.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So if safety is the issue
November 4, 2007 - 14:16 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWith me so far? . . . .it's enabling them to make it safer. . . .
So if safety is the issue, and you just stated it is, then you would be all for giving all students a handgun, so they would be safe if another student or administrator went bonkers and they could take him/her out.
After all, as you said, it's all about safety.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Apples and oranges. Do you
November 4, 2007 - 14:22 ET by JasonCApples and oranges. Do you seriously think the two are legitimately comparable?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason C, my assertion rediculous? Hardly.
November 4, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Dave RIn fact, I'm sort of surprised that, given the moral degeneracy that is currently taking place in this country, particularly in the area of "government education" that it hasn't happened already.
I mean, how far are we from a big push to legalize sex between adults and children? Not very, I'd say, judging from events currently taking place in certain parts of Europe.
....the very fruition of your precious free market capitalism..
I disagree. I think this has been brought about by the anything-goes mentality of the left in this country. After all, their self-destructive sexual "revolution" has brought us nothing but broken homes, STD's that have risen to epidemic proportions, and the destruction of the innocence of our children, who are our future.
No society has ever withstood an onslaught of this nature and survived. We certainly won't.
As for your precious psychiatrists, take a hard look at what these drug-infested doltz are doing to our kids.
Yeah I agree, Ritalin is a
November 4, 2007 - 14:32 ET by JasonCYeah I agree, Ritalin is a bad development, and it's addicted a whole generation of college students as well as kids. But first of all, it takes a parent's approval (and insurance card) to get that stuff, and second, I'm talking about peer-reviewed psychiatric researchers, not school psychologists.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
This has nothing to do with
November 4, 2007 - 14:30 ET by balboaThis has nothing to do with challenging gender roles, or trying to make homosexuality accepted. It was a silly day for Spirit Week, something school's have been doing for AGES.
Balboa
November 4, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Really? Please provide me with links to other middle schools around the country that have sponsored such events. ns
I meant the spirit week
November 4, 2007 - 14:52 ET by balboaI meant the spirit week craziness. This was not done in order to "engineer" any kinds of social acceptance. It's zany spirit week antics. Harmless fun.
Bal
November 4, 2007 - 16:50 ET by Noel SheppardB,
How do you know that? Did you see any articles suggesting that this was just zany craziness? Please advise, because I couldn't find any.
And, if this is customary as you suggest, can you show me examples of other middle schools around the country where it's happened? Thank you. ns
Noel
November 4, 2007 - 17:04 ET by balboaAbove it says it was done for Spirit Week:
"The mother of a seventh-grade student at Adams Middle School was alarmed when she heard that on the last day of the school's "Spirit Week,"
You didn't have crazy stuff at your school for spirit weeks? Dress Up day, Nerd day, Hawaiian day? When we had Nerd day, was that some kind of engineering effort to get students to embrace math and staying home on Friday nights? Or to accept Hawaiian culture?
My examples come from what I saw at the school I went to and the others in our area. I can't really show you about others because they don't receive attention because they're innocuous.
B
November 4, 2007 - 17:21 ET by Noel SheppardB,
I'm not sure it's so innocuous:
Is this zany hijinks, or to encourage free-thinking?
Furthermore, take a look at this "Resource Guide" at the district's website. Notice a section entitled "Gay & Lesbian" with three different organizations listed including their phone numbers? Think that's a bit odd for a public school district that only serves students through eighth grade? ns
Noel,This thing boils
November 4, 2007 - 17:36 ET by alamojbNoel,
This thing boils down to people being able to recognize subtle attacks on Traditional culture. Unfortunately, too many people only recognize the full fledged frontal assaults, not the subtle propaganda war.
I am also convinced that many of the people who claim stuff like this means nothing know it really is something but are covering for it.
Over in the open forums this week I linked to an article about the subtle enroachment of Sharia in England where the school teachers were being told to dress "Muslim" for a day.
People are so in denial. Traditional Western Culture is under attack from within and without.
There are some strange alliances making it happen.
OK, free thinkers, not zany
November 4, 2007 - 19:48 ET by balboaOK, free thinkers, not zany hijinks. Fair enough. Do you really think the idea was, "You know what? We need to try to get more of our students to try and be gay"?
Bal
November 4, 2007 - 20:45 ET by Noel SheppardB,
No. And I don't think I implied that. Go back and read my article. Do you see anything in it that's inflammatory?
That said, do you have children in school, and, if so, what are their ages? ns
Noel
November 4, 2007 - 21:04 ET by balboaThat's my bad, bud. I got you mixed in with the whole "decline of modern civilization" gang.
I don't have kids, so I don't know anything about that. Perhaps I'd feel differently then. But, I imagine I'd tell my kids they don't have to dress up for anything they don't want to.
}}---> Crossdress day
November 4, 2007 - 23:31 ET by Cool ArrowBut if they wanted to dress drag, that'd be okay.
May as well start them early in diapers to show them how silly it is for genders to have roles.
Bravo. Brava.
If they wanted to do it as
November 4, 2007 - 23:35 ET by balboa}}---> Great
November 4, 2007 - 23:45 ET by Cool ArrowYeah, just don't let them come to school wearing a crucifix on their Tshirt for "cross dressing day"?
Still no problem with it?
Sounds like the Admins have their own version of "Meet Me at the Pole"
What in the world does that
November 5, 2007 - 10:12 ET by balboaWhat in the world does that mean?
10+ years ago in high
November 4, 2007 - 17:19 ET by amber10+ years ago in high school, we did that. It was a part of spirit week as bal said. I went to a very conservative school too. Since I always showed up in a flanel shirt and jeans it was not much of a switch for me, but some of the football players were the most outrageous, dressing like specific girls in school (the ones we all called the bimbos). It was hysterical, but in my school it could also be considered an insult to real cross dressers because the vast majority of people regularly (this was in the early 90's) said vulgar things about homosexuals. That said, it was a while ago and there were no openly homosexual people in my school, staff included. If I was in an area where people were trying to force everyone to accept that homosexuality is ok I would have had a hard time with it. Today, I would probably say it is innappropriate because it feels more like indoctrination. My school was just doing it in fun, like backwards day, inside out day, green and white day.....
Amber
November 4, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Noel SheppardAmber,
The key difference is high school, when sexuality in general is much more commonplace. This is a middle school with kids conceivably as young as ten. See the difference? ns
Yes, I do. I also see the
November 4, 2007 - 17:38 ET by amberYes, I do. I also see the difference between doing this in the midwest 15 years ago and doing it in California today. It is a very different time and culture than 1994; when I graduated.
Amber, It is a very
November 4, 2007 - 17:49 ET by alamojbAmber,
It is a very different time and culture now compared to 1994 because of the work being done in the early 1990's. The Cultural left was "preping the battlefield" back then. This current culture did not happen by accident or overnight. It happened gradually, by clever compromise and subtle manipulation.
First College level Students, then High School, then Middle School, then Grade school.....
First "coming out of the closet"
Then "accepting people for who they are.."
Then hate crimes laws used against you for disagreeing with the people who were "coming out of the closet" only a few years before.
Watch Europe. This is where we are heading.
alamojb, you get the cookie for the best post of the day.
November 4, 2007 - 21:52 ET by Dave RI think you have nailed it. And then some.
At one of his college
November 5, 2007 - 00:26 ET by maggieqpublicAt one of his college fraternity parties, my 6'7" tall son dressed as the gay cop from Reno 911. He and the other party-goers found it hilarious.... but I can tell you right now that when my son was 11 years old (and in middle school), he would have been very uncomfortable and would have asked to stay home from cross-dressing day. The term "cross-dresser" also identifies a specific social/political group (at least around here).
If this is Brentwood today, no wonder Richard Pombo lost the election.
Are you sure bal...
November 4, 2007 - 14:54 ET by Parker1227Women already dress like men all the time and its accepted and no big deal because pants are about work and practicality.
But dressing up "girly" with rouge, cleavage and short-short skirt - is all about sex and the come-on.
Do you deny it?
What does that have to do
November 4, 2007 - 14:57 ET by balboaWhat does that have to do with a silly dress-up day for Spirit Week?
Halloween?
November 4, 2007 - 14:40 ET by Parker1227We had a somewhat thuggish jock in the HS I attended in the 70's who wore a white nurse's uniform every Halloween. It was quite funny. Mike Tyson in drag.
But a high school-er doing something funny to shock his friends is entirely different than the social engineering of grade schoolers and middle schoolers (as is going on across the country owing to the total Leftist monopoly of the public education system).
There are plenty of tolerant libertarian types like myself who could care less what adults do to themselves (or with other consenting adults) as long as those actions are kept off the roads (drugs), away from children (drugs, sex), and behind closed doors.
But gay activists demand not just tolerance but full approval, full social sanction - even though it is not clear (nor may it ever be clear) exactly what being "gay" is, and what leads to this self-designation.
The PC lie that people are just born this way makes as much sense as global warmingists saying the argument is over. Talk about a self righteous lack of intellectual humility.
A large percentage of self-identified gay women are victims of molestation and child rape. Many gay males have also been molested as children.
And there is a lot of male on male acting out which occurs in prisons and in very conservative (especially Muslim) societies where females are not available to men.
And these are just a few of the many complexities surrounding the gay issue.
But, as a society, there is good reason to not just teach our children that one kind of sexual orientation is as good as another. Nature gives most males hyper sex-drives, so giving the mainstream nod to male on male sex (like what we have witnessed in social experiments in San Fransisco) is a recipe for health epidemic disaster. There is no one to say no.
Do we really want to end up like ancient Rome, where men dated men for sex and reserved their women for making babies?