Prom Cancelled Over Lesbian Prom Date Request

[*jeannie*]

This is ridiculous...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_prom_date

[12voltman59]

Could you imagine living in that little Bum Fuck Egypt shithole of a town??

Wow--the town's hot spot is the bowling alley!!!

I do hope---someone---not a bible thumper church that denies the girls from attending---organizes an independent prom and allows the girls to attend---- that all goes well and fun for all and the sky doesn't fall!!!

Maybe Morgan Freeman can step up and pay for this prom like he did just a few years back for another ass backward Mississippi town where the school board would not allow an integrated prom to be held (they had been having two proms up to that point--one for whites and another for blacks)---the prom Freeman paid for went on---the black and white kids got along fine---many went on interracial dates---the night was great and fun for the kids with all going well.

It does go to show---many times school board members are a bunch of spineless jellyfish who are set back in some other time period.

I wish I had the money---I would roll on down there and pay for a prom where those girls could attend too.

Here is a story about the prom Freeman paid for and the documentary film made of that event:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/16/morgan-freeman-pays-for-i_n_158628.html

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

lol Jeanie beat me to posting it..:};):bigrin:
Cat

[MarieDelta]

Well I hope that they get to go to a prom. Maybe they can set one up for GLBTQ & SA?

Here's a hint - Move away, girls, soon.

Find a community where you can be yourselves without fear.

[xtopherix]

=( this reminds me of my highschool.

[12voltman59]

Instead or Morgan Freeman--maybe someone like Melissa Etheridge or Rosey O'Donnell would be more fitting to pay for an independent prom.

If Melissa did it--she could perform some of her music then have some group play that the kids would really like like a rap group of some sort or a "boy band." I am sure with her connections, she could get some group to come play.

[Karasel]

That is just shameful for what the school did to her. At least she had supportive family members. My school was surprisingly gay tolerant, the teachers were afraid to go into the bathrooms, though... Lots of gay (sometimes straight) sex going on in there.

[allbimyself]

I certainly hope none of the other kids do something to her. If she is assaulted in any way, her family should sue the school district for making her the scapegoat.

[darkeyes]

I certainly hope none of the other kids do something to her. If she is assaulted in any way, her family should sue the school district for making her the scapegoat.Am actually not sure that European equality laws wudn mean she actually has a case as it stands wer she in Europe.. dunno enuff bout the case an news reports can b a lil unreliable .. but if they made ne claim it wos 2 do wiv 'er sexuality she may well hav had.. an possibly 'er proposed dress...

.. bloody 21st century an arseholes ruin kids dreams an fun.. petty minded, bigotted getts..

[elian]

It would be really cool if they decided to have the prom anyway...but in small towns like that there would be SOMEBODY who would decide to make trouble about it I'm sure.

[Long Duck Dong]

unfortunately, we all knew this was coming.....

rather than make concessions for one person, everybody suffers....
this is the danger of demanding our rights.... and I am referring to any group not just the LGBT

we view it as wrong, but its a legal move.... the issue here is that we see the school as wrong for their actions, but all they have done is avoid another issue

if the school board had allowed for a same sex date at the school prom, there could have been a high chance of disruption by other students or people that opposed the same sex date.....

I have in the past, spoken up about this type of thing and how we will push too far and cost everybody and I did get told that I had no idea what I was talking about.... now its clear that I do....

anti discrimination laws stop discrimination for the most part, but they do not and can not force others to provide the *stage* for the same rights for all.... and sadly in this case, the school did exactly that, they put everybody on the same footing.... no school prom....

[OmegaGray]

Hopefully the young lady goes to a good college with a GLBT student association. My previous college had "pride proms" every year, which were often the first prom or school dances the individuals in our GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) had attended. Besides the dancing portion, there was a speaker, an award ceremony, and games with prizes. It is a shame that the tolerance and acceptance issues still pervade high school communities, but it is nice to have a more receptive atmosphere in college.

[darkeyes]

Mite b a court case afta all.. fingie's x'd.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/index.html

[allbimyself]

if the school board had allowed for a same sex date at the school prom, there could have been a high chance of disruption by other students or people that opposed the same sex date.....Ah, yes, the threat of violence (even though there was none in this case) and we should all stop demanding equal rights. Thankfully, history has many examples of those brave enough to stand up. People that have improved the quality of life for us all.


anti discrimination laws stop discrimination for the most part, but they do not and can not force others to provide the *stage* for the same rights for all.... and sadly in this case, the school did exactly that, they put everybody on the same footing.... no school prom....The "others" are a government organization, subject to the law. This isn't a church being forced to conduct same gender marriage, this is a PUBLIC, TAX PAYER FUNDED entity, and they must abide by the law. They chose a cowardly option, to cancel the prom, while not publicly stating but implying that it was the fault of the girl and the ACLU. They did not say that they did so because they couldn't guarantee safety. They did it because they think they have a responsibility to protect the "good normal" kids from the "deviants."

[12voltman59]

Like I said----I hope this situation comes to the attention of some well off GLBT celeb, with whoever that celeb is, decides he or she wants to do something for these people, putting his or her money where their mouth is by paying for a totally rocking, kick ass prom that would blow away anything the school itself would have done--and all the kids who attend have a kick ass time and of course---it becomes one of the best things to ever happen in that shit-kickin' little town!!


Ya ask me what I would do if I ever won a honking, mega lotto???---I would look for things like that to write some nice big fat checks to give some people some fun and to stick it in the eye of the about to burn out 20 watt lightbulbs for brains those geniuses on that school board have in their heads!!!!!

[onewhocares]

This is disgraceful.

Pasa

I agree!

Belle

[TwylaTwobits]

I'll prolly get slammed for this, but I can't blame the school for canceling the prom when the ACLU was involved. With the ACLU you are damned if you do, damned if you don't, any action or inaction is viewed by them as action. I do wonder about the safety of the two girls now, she has already been told by someone "thanks for ruining our senior year".

It appears that until the ACLU got involved she had a couple options. Get tickets seperately and then go to prom with her date. No need to ask for permission to go to prom with her date and that's what got the apple cart rolling.

It's just sad that so many dreams of a prom are ended for many kids, those partnered and those unpartnered. Prom is a special time in the lives of kids and the ACLU tried to turn it into a circus.

[Long Duck Dong]

Ah, yes, the threat of violence (even though there was none in this case) and we should all stop demanding equal rights. Thankfully, history has many examples of those brave enough to stand up. People that have improved the quality of life for us all.

The "others" are a government organization, subject to the law. This isn't a church being forced to conduct same gender marriage, this is a PUBLIC, TAX PAYER FUNDED entity, and they must abide by the law. They chose a cowardly option, to cancel the prom, while not publicly stating but implying that it was the fault of the girl and the ACLU. They did not say that they did so because they couldn't guarantee safety. They did it because they think they have a responsibility to protect the "good normal" kids from the "deviants."


the school has a obligation to teach our kids, to provide a education, they are not obligated to provide events and situations that can be used for a personal equal rights war ground....

the female in question, chose the prom to make her *stance * she did not have to, she was not obligated to, but she chose to....
to turn around and say * but the law gives me that right * is not a good enuf reason to create a issue that costs so many people unfairly

how can we sit here and say * poor girl * when the rest of the people at the school will possibly not have a prom because one student decided that she had the right to decide to wear a tux and openly show off her sexuality....

did she have to do that, was it required by law for her to do that, is it a legal stature that she had to wear a tux and take her female partner openly...

the law for schools is not that old, it takes time for attitudes to adjust and change.... but once again we see the attitude that * my rights make it right * and that is the issue.....

what that girl has presented to the students is the one thing that we do not want people to see.... having our rights can cost some many others their rights... not the look for lgbt rights that we want to show the rest of the world... and seriously I question if there was any other way for the female to go to the prom with her partner under a compromise of not wearing a tux etc.... or if the female used the stubborn bs attitude of * my rights make it right *

either way, this has put a large dent in the lgbt rights situation in there town.... and possibly kicked the chances of some people coming out, back another 10 years.....

so again, I ask the question, did the female have to have it all her way and was there ever any chance she would reach a compromise with the school and not hurt so many others with her desire to have it her way

[MarieDelta]

I think she is brave young lady. I hope Ellen sees this and puts on a huge prom for her and her friends.

Its hard to stand against the crowd, but if you don't, nothing ever changes.



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

[allbimyself]

the school has a obligation to teach our kids, to provide a education, they are not obligated to provide events and situations that can be used for a personal equal rights war ground....Of course they don't, but they do. And as long as they do they have to follow they law.


the female in question, chose the prom to make her *stance * she did not have to, she was not obligated to, but she chose to....
to turn around and say * but the law gives me that right * is not a good enuf reason to create a issue that costs so many people unfairlyIt isn't? WTF is a good enough reason? She wanted to take a date to a school function, JUST LIKE ALL HER PEERS. Yes, she's an evil feminazi trying to ruin it for everyone else. :rolleyes:


how can we sit here and say * poor girl * when the rest of the people at the school will possibly not have a prom because one student decided that she had the right to decide to wear a tux and openly show off her sexuality....OMG! First you say that the school's job isn't to provide the activity, then you worry about the kids that aren't going to get to go. And yes, she does have the right to wear a tux and take her GF. This is so fucking unbelievable! As long as the majority get their rights the minority shouldn't complain that they don't get those same rights? WTF!


did she have to do that, was it required by law for her to do that, is it a legal stature that she had to wear a tux and take her female partner openly...There are so many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to start. Why are you worried about her defending her rights? Are there laws anywhere that say anyone must defend their own rights? The law here, LDD, is that the school can't discriminate. End of story. The law says that but they can ignore it and she should just shut the fuck up?


the law for schools is not that old, it takes time for attitudes to adjust and change.... but once again we see the attitude that * my rights make it right * and that is the issue..... Oh yes, the law is new, lets not enforce it for a few decades until everyone is used to it. That makes sense. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If people do not defend their own rights NO ONE WILL!


what that girl has presented to the students is the one thing that we do not want people to see.... having our rights can cost some many others their rights... Who's rights? The school boards right to discriminate? To dictate who a girl can date? Again, you are trying to claim she somehow took away the rights of other students AFTER claiming no one had a right to the damn prom anyway because it's not the school's job. You can't have it both ways! And she didn't take away the other student's prom, the school board did!
not the look for lgbt rights that we want to show the rest of the world... and seriously I question if there was any other way for the female to go to the prom with her partner under a compromise of not wearing a tux etc.... or if the female used the stubborn bs attitude of * my rights make it right * Yes, poor rednecks can't make a girl wear a dress and date one of their redneck boys! Their rights are trampled because she isn't ashamed of who she is! How dare she!


either way, this has put a large dent in the lgbt rights situation in there town.... and possibly kicked the chances of some people coming out, back another 10 years.....Yes, history proves that those that are discriminated against never got anywhere by demanding equal rights. They only got equal rights by saying "yes, massa! no, massa!" to the man and not complaining about having to ride in the back of the bus and not drinking from the water fountain.


so again, I ask the question, did the female have to have it all her way and was there ever any chance she would reach a compromise with the school and not hurt so many others with her desire to have it her way
You are a piece of work. I used to have some respect for you, but this entire post is so wrong headed that I can't believe you are serious.

[Long Duck Dong]

you are missing my point..... completely

the way that its being portrayed is that a females LGBT right has been violated and that the school are a pack of assholes....
now a court case is being done to force the school to hold the prom....

now my point is this.... was there any possibility of compromise between the female and the school to accommodate both parties... as I have not seen any mention of it in the article, only the females point of view and a lot of assumptions about why the school acted the way they did.....

now you have a number of school students that are no part of the issue between the school, the female and the issue at stake, that have no prom to go to
they have no prom cos of a issue between a student and the school....

now the school was not dictating who can date who, but avoiding possible issues at the prom,.... we have no way of knowing if there is underlying issues that could surface at the prom, as the article never referred to any..

as for the majority vs the minority issue.... I know about that very well.... it only takes one person to fuck it up for the many....

now what if it is reversed, what if the majority want the female there and one doesn't in case of protesting etc, should the rights of the one be upheld... as they have a right to a good prom experience, not one that is a major war ground.....

what if it was a straight couple with a lesbian prom, would we react the same way

allbymyself.... I am not saying that EITHER party is wrong.... I am saying that neither party was right in the way they did things.... as the current result is one that has cost many people.....

now, with the female going to the prom in a tux, that creates added pressure on the school and the staff to act in accordance with providing a safe and fair prom.....
but if a female can go in a tux, then they would also have to allow for males to go in dresses.... and the reaction to that again would be one that could make a scene at the prom...

ok back to my simple point, did the female have to wear a tux, was wearing a dress not possible .... its a compromise...a simple compromise...
it doesn't infringe on her rights, it may have not caused the prom to be cancelled and it sure as hell would not make the lgbt once again look like people that want it all our way and screw the consequences....

[allbimyself]

No, I'm not missing your point. I'm ignoring it because it doesn't matter and makes no sense.

You are basing your thoughts on conjecture. You don't know what happened either. But from the statement released by the school board, they evidently did not want a lesbian couple at the prom and the only way they could stop it was by canceling it. Compromise? Why do you blame her for the lack of a compromise? Since you admitted you don't know, why not blame the school board? BTW, what compromise do you think the school board would have accepted? Wear a tux but date a boy? Wear a dress and bring her GF? I seriously doubt they would have allowed either.

Her options as you seem to think were: 1) Date a boy, deny who you are just to get along. 2) Stay home. You are different, you don't get to do what the other kids do. Fuck that!

You think they were worried about what would happen? Obviously they don't give a shit about what might happen as they have endangered this girl.

Forget about the fucking tux! Why is that such a big issue for you? And I assume you mean "men wearing dresses" (not women). Evidently you believe discrimination against x-dressers is ok. That explains your fascination with the tux.

Tell me, why should girls have to wear dresses to the prom? Why can't boys wear dresses? I think you don't give kids enough credit. They'd deal with it. The school board isn't afraid of a scene at the prom. They are afraid the rednecks won't re-elect them.

And as far as those other kids losing out on prom, if they couldn't stand up for the rights of their classmates they don't deserve it.

Your whole discussion of the rights of one over the rights of many shows a total lack of understanding of what rights are. Denying the rights of others is not a right.

Your arguments are the same ones used by those that opposed the integrated prom that 12volt mentioned earlier. Guess what, the prom they did have went off smoothly. Nothing bad happened.

[FalconAngel]

What can one expect from backward thinking, stuck in the dark ages, bible-belt fools.

Perhaps the ACLU can bring them up to the 20th century. Expecting them to get to the 21st century may be expecting too much.
After all, they are not the brightest crayons in the box.

[MtnMan]

i looked up the school on the web and found her--she's a straight A student! Doesn't matter that she's an honor student; it only matters that she's gay . . . how sad for that school board.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok allibi, you be right, I simply do not care.....

I have been vocal a few times about issues like this created by * equal rights *... and yeah again, I am being told that the school is being unfair for not catering to the minority....

simply and bluntly.... find out what the dress code for the school prom is...
cos I am pretty sure that it would lay out acceptable dress for the prom...

that is my point there... not the sexuality or the partner,.... but the dress code...

ie DID the school state acceptable dress for the prom... if that is the case... then once again,... it will prove my point... that we are so hung up on our rights... that we do not stop to think of the effect on others when we decide to buck the trend

[darkeyes]

ok allibi, you be right, I simply do not care.....

I have been vocal a few times about issues like this created by * equal rights *... and yeah again, I am being told that the school is being unfair for not catering to the minority....

simply and bluntly.... find out what the dress code for the school prom is...
cos I am pretty sure that it would lay out acceptable dress for the prom...

that is my point there... not the sexuality or the partner,.... but the dress code...

ie DID the school state acceptable dress for the prom... if that is the case... then once again,... it will prove my point... that we are so hung up on our rights... that we do not stop to think of the effect on others when we decide to buck the trend

Yep..Allbi is right.. we havent come as far as we have over the last half century or so without some strife and without pushing out the boundaries of what is acceptable. Yes it always invloves risk, yet what is achieved unless sometimes we take risks? Sometimes quite serious and occasionally dangerous risks.

With regard to the dress code, I can see your point, yet this also is a red herring for this is the day of equal opportunities for all or at least it is supposed to be. Unisex clothing is commonly worn by both sexes, and it is not that long ago when girls would be sent home from school or even work for wearing trousers, or a suit and tie, however smart, and not so long ago that lads were sent home for the length of their hair or as my father recalls, the wearing of a pink shirt and he was himself sent home from school back in the 1960's for wearing mens boots which had a 2" heel. These days are long gone and even for a formal occasion such as a Prom any dress code should at best include formal and smart. Type of dress should, whether it be tux, suit, kilt, dress, blouse and skirt or whatever.. the sex of the individual should be irrelevant. For a nation of individuals, large tracts of the country are very fond of stamping out any trace of individuality. It is not alone in that, for my own country is fighting the same argument, although possibly not with the same ferocity as sometimes is the case accross the ocean.

Human rights are human rights. In sexuality and mode of dress there are fights to be fought and won, and these can never be won unless someone takes a risk, and makes a stand. All credit to this young girl.

[MarieDelta]

Looking at the school districts website I find no stated dress code for prom (although there is a non-discrimination statement.)

As far as I am concerned, she was gonna show up dressed in formal attire, not jeans or lingerie or?

In fact I would say she was quite respectful in that she asked before she showed up in her tux.

As far as this being her fault, I don't think so. The school district could have just let it pass, made no fuss and just rolled on with it.

All it takes is a group of bigots to ruin everyone's fun.

[hudson9]

now my point is this.... was there any possibility of compromise between the female and the school to accommodate both parties... as I have not seen any mention of it in the article, only the females point of view and a lot of assumptions about why the school acted the way they did.....



The School Board was unwilling to negotiate or compromise. The ACLU contacted the board INFORMALLY -- no legal papers, no formal complaint -- and the Board's reaction was to refuse to discuss it, then cancel.

As far as the Dress Code -- she didn't ask to go in a Gorilla suit, or naked, or in a white robe with a pointy hat -- she asked if she could wear a Tux, acceptable attire according to the published Dress Code, but only if you're male. (After all, didn't the decline of western civilization begin when we started allowing pant-suits?)

I'm sorry, Long, but your argument just sounds too much like those who used to say (I'm old enough to remember this) "Oh, I'm for civil rights, but why do those Coloreds have to be so rude about it? Sure, they can ride on my bus, but why can't they just stay quietly by themselves in the back of the bus?"

[FalconAngel]

ok allibi, you be right, I simply do not care.....

I have been vocal a few times about issues like this created by * equal rights *... and yeah again, I am being told that the school is being unfair for not catering to the minority....

Let me see if I have this correctly; You are defending the illegal actions of a school board in an area that is notoriously and historically opposed to GLBT rights, religious tolerance and still has issues of racism; which is in a country whose civil rights laws you are not familiar with and which you do not live>

Do I have it pretty much right so far?

Now let's clarify a few things in American civil rights laws, as it applies to this situation:
It is not the job of the school to pick and choose which minority that they will and will not protect. They are lawfully obligated to protect all students rights equally.

Civil rights are not something that the majority get's to vote on giving to anyone because equality (equal protection under the law - covered in the 14th amendment of the Constitution) is something which all persons are entitled to have; without question and without prejudice.
I won't say that it is an internationally universal belief (obviously), but it is one of the ideas which this nation was built on.

Didn't all of the arguments against prop 8 in CA tell you anything about human rights?

When you leave equality up to a vote, then you never get equality, since the majority will always vote against it.

We fought a war over that subject about 244 years ago, so I think that it is safe to say that, as far as American law and civil rights are concerned, we, as Americans, are more intimately acquainted with the intricacies of our own civil rights laws than anyone living in any other country.

To make it clearer, we also fought a war in which slavery and racism were only 2 of the many causes for the war. Amongst the many things that came of that war (good and bad), civil rights were finally re-established. It wasn't a perfect fix, but it was a start.

But if we had left the issue of equal rights for Blacks up to a vote, we would still have slavery. The same principles apply to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other noted factors, for that matter.
When you leave equality up to a vote, then you never get equality, since the majority will always vote against it.

To fix your confusion on the matter, the laws must change to get the whole of society to change.



simply and bluntly.... find out what the dress code for the school prom is...
cos I am pretty sure that it would lay out acceptable dress for the prom...

that is my point there... not the sexuality or the partner,.... but the dress code...
ie DID the school state acceptable dress for the prom... if that is the case... then once again,... it will prove my point... that we are so hung up on our rights... that we do not stop to think of the effect on others when we decide to buck the trend


If the dress code had been the issue, this would not have become a newsworthy issue because she could have found a reasonable compromise.

It is about her sexuality. Nothing more or less. And the school board is fast discovering that, just because she is a kid, doesn't mean that she can be pushed around, either.

She is in a Bible Belt state, after all, so they are still heavily opposed to things like LGBT rights, evolution, tolerance of other religions and other things that oppose or contradict whatever local biblical leaders' doctrines say they should oppose.

And for the 3rd time:
When you leave equality up to a vote, then you never get equality, since the majority will always vote against it.

[Long Duck Dong]

The School Board was unwilling to negotiate or compromise. The ACLU contacted the board INFORMALLY -- no legal papers, no formal complaint -- and the Board's reaction was to refuse to discuss it, then cancel.

As far as the Dress Code -- she didn't ask to go in a Gorilla suit, or naked, or in a white robe with a pointy hat -- she asked if she could wear a Tux, acceptable attire according to the published Dress Code, but only if you're male. (After all, didn't the decline of western civilization begin when we started allowing pant-suits?)

I'm sorry, Long, but your argument just sounds too much like those who used to say (I'm old enough to remember this) "Oh, I'm for civil rights, but why do those Coloreds have to be so rude about it? Sure, they can ride on my bus, but why can't they just stay quietly by themselves in the back of the bus?"

no I am the type of person that would say that everybody is allowed on the bus and to sit where they want.... I have no issues with that, but you follow the rules of the bus is they are equal and fair.... ie you do not smoke on the bus, play a ghetto blaster at full volume, swear etc etc..
you have respect for your follow bus riders...

you can claim your right to ride the bus equally... you just do not claim its your right to be disruptive or interfere with the rights of other bus riders... as freedom of expression.... as you would expect the same of them

[darkeyes]

no I am the type of person that would say that everybody is allowed on the bus and to sit where they want.... I have no issues with that, but you follow the rules of the bus is they are equal and fair.... ie you do not smoke on the bus, play a ghetto blaster at full volume, swear etc etc..
you have respect for your follow bus riders...

you can claim your right to ride the bus equally... you just do not claim its your right to be disruptive or interfere with the rights of other bus riders... as freedom of expression.... as you would expect the same of them

Question Duckie.. who is bein disruptive? The person tryin 2 claim ther rights or the persons tryin 2 stop them? Kno on whose side me is on....:)

[BooBooKittie]

That just makes me sick to my very core. The epitome of ignorance ! I live in a shi**y hick town with not so much as a bowling alley or bar too call its own. If something like this were to happen I would think it would only be my town, but I guess I was wrong. Our "token" lesbian senior wore a tux to her prom ! But for some bulls**t reason wouldn't let her wear it for her senior portrait...? I can barely even make complete sentences this makes me so angry.:bipride:

[Long Duck Dong]

Let me see if I have this correctly; You are defending the illegal actions of a school board in an area that is notoriously and historically opposed to GLBT rights, religious tolerance and still has issues of racism; which is in a country whose civil rights laws you are not familiar with and which you do not live>

Do I have it pretty much right so far?

Now let's clarify a few things in American civil rights laws, as it applies to this situation:
It is not the job of the school to pick and choose which minority that they will and will not protect. They are lawfully obligated to protect all students rights equally.

Civil rights are not something that the majority get's to vote on giving to anyone because equality (equal protection under the law - covered in the 14th amendment of the Constitution) is something which all persons are entitled to have; without question and without prejudice.
I won't say that it is an internationally universal belief (obviously), but it is one of the ideas which this nation was built on.

Didn't all of the arguments against prop 8 in CA tell you anything about human rights?

When you leave equality up to a vote, then you never get equality, since the majority will always vote against it.

We fought a war over that subject about 244 years ago, so I think that it is safe to say that, as far as American law and civil rights are concerned, we, as Americans, are more intimately acquainted with the intricacies of our own civil rights laws than anyone living in any other country.

To make it clearer, we also fought a war in which slavery and racism were only 2 of the many causes for the war. Amongst the many things that came of that war (good and bad), civil rights were finally re-established. It wasn't a perfect fix, but it was a start.

But if we had left the issue of equal rights for Blacks up to a vote, we would still have slavery. The same principles apply to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other noted factors, for that matter.
When you leave equality up to a vote, then you never get equality, since the majority will always vote against it.

To fix your confusion on the matter, the laws must change to get the whole of society to change.





If the dress code had been the issue, this would not have become a newsworthy issue because she could have found a reasonable compromise.

It is about her sexuality. Nothing more or less. And the school board is fast discovering that, just because she is a kid, doesn't mean that she can be pushed around, either.

She is in a Bible Belt state, after all, so they are still heavily opposed to things like LGBT rights, evolution, tolerance of other religions and other things that oppose or contradict whatever local biblical leaders' doctrines say they should oppose.

And for the 3rd time:
When you leave equality up to a vote, then you never get equality, since the majority will always vote against it.

last I knew, cancelling the prom was not illegal.... and thats what this is about.... she being a victim cos the school canceled the prom...
what about the rest of the students that also have no prom.... are they not victims too ???? or do they not matter cos they are not LGBT ???????

I am not denying the schools actions and rulings, I am questioning what the hell happened....
the ruling about same sex partners, was that rule created to stop same sex partners as in lovers going.... or to stop a gender inbalance at a small town prom, IE 200 males, 20 females and then enforced badly....

falcon if you read what you wrote, then you would know why the school acted the way they did..... there would have been back ground pressure and influence on the school board that would have extended well beyond the school board....
imagine how hard it could be to get a job, credit, a loan, supplies, help on your farm etc etc if you cross the powers that be in small towns... regardless of legal law.....

now the female in question, knew what would happen when she pushed the boundaries... and in part I believe thats why she pushed the boundaries...
it gets attention on her, and that works in her favour and her future for her...
a straight A student looks good in the media in a discrimination case and that will help her future job prospects...

ok let me make this clear.... the school has the right to cancel the prom in the same way the female has the right to fight for her rights and be treated as equal....
she knew the cost to the other students when she did it... so to play the * victim * card, doesn't work for me.... but for the other students that lost their prom thru no actions of their own, yes they are victims...
they should have not been penalized for the actions of the female

that comes back to what I have said in the past, fighting for your rights is fine... just bear in mind that your actions will cause a reaction... and in cases, cost others unfairly.... that is the problem right there....
but people are gonna ignore the other victims and focus on the one person and say * poor person, fighting for their rights *....

so I say this.... how about all the activists and pro righters dig deep in their pockets, and fork over the money so that all the students get their prom.... and that way everybody wins over the prom issue.....
as for the other issues such as the anti discrimination.... thats a fight that is not as easily won.... and the fall out from this issue is not gonna be won in a court....

we already know from the media articles that the female has pissed off a lot of people in that town and if a privately run prom is held, she will not be invited....

so again, yes I uphold her right to go to the school prom with her partner, as for the tux... that is a aux issue, thats freedom of expression...
yes I believe school handled the matter wrong with the rulings
no I believe that distancing themselves from the matter was the right move, as things can be made very hard for people in small towns, and it was the best option in that respect

now to clarify for people, I live in new zealand, we have equal anti discrimination and equal employment laws, we have marriage and civil union laws so we are equal straight / lgbt......
now I know full well what its like to be on the front line fighting for the rights of everybody equally, with christians and churches and against them, against the anti LGBT, the racists etc etc etc
and I live in a small town

so before people assume more and more about me, I ask this, how many of the people that think I am out of line, have stand on the front lines out in public, in the face of threats and violence and subtle pressure...
while fighting for the equal rights of others... and how many of the people that think I am out of line, are arm chair protestors that have never lived in a small town and have no idea just how things work

[Long Duck Dong]

now, how about people try looking at this point of view....

say for arguments sake... if the school prom is not run at all this year.... and there is 400 students that would have gone....
thats 400 students that have lost that chance to go to their school prom... thats not something you can just replace... its gone....

if the school decides not to run the school prom again, thats a large number of students that have lost that chance to go to a school prom....

thats a large number of students that are penalised for something they never did, or were involved in.... they lose out totally.

I have seen people argue that its the females right to go to the school prom... I agree, but I also agree its the other peoples rights to go too, they have lost that right... why are you not advocating their rights and their loss too???
their rights have been infringed upon... they have been unfairly treated .... yet there is total silence in that area....

ok, its about selective activism v's equal activism.... you are selecting the victim, you are being selective about who you support.... and you are being vocal about how there should be equal rights and support.... while you remain silent about the majority that have lost out...

the school prom is the same thing... its selective activism...
its optional... not obligation.... its not a job, a house, etc etc...
the female chose to make a stance, knowing the cost to others... knowing that it would unfairly penalise them and chose to ignore that fact....

while her fight for her rights is commendable and admirable and should have happened.... her attitude towards others was less than respectable, and like I am seeing in the thread, they are largely ignored....

when we speak of equality, its a bad look when our voices are only supporting the one person affected and not the majority affected.... it makes us as bad as the school board that singled out one person and penalised the rest cos of it.....

now tell me, am I still wrong... ???? or am I actually talking about equality as a equal for all term....

[MarieDelta]

McMillen said she never expected the district to respond the way it did.

"A lot of people said that was going to happen, but I said, they had already spent too much money on the prom" to cancel it, she said.

I don't think she wanted to have the prom canceled.

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD, you're right, all the kids had their rights infringed upon, however you are wrong to suggest that the other kids had their rights infringed upon by the one girl who wanted a same sex date and to wear a tux. All the kids had their rights infringed upon by the school and school board. You are wrong to suggest that we are all silent on the other kids' rights. If that were the case, none would argue the decision of the school and school board.

Besides, if we really get down to it, I hardly think going to the prom is a "right". I'd have to say it is more of a priveledge. Like a Driver's licence is a priveledge.



The female did not make the decision to cancel the dance. The school did. How about the school take responsibility for its own actions? They should not pass the buck and make this girl the scape goat as you are so successfully doing by your thought processes and related comments.

So, yes LDD, you are still wrong.

how about I wrong.... you are misquoting me

I said they had their rights infringed upon.... with the loss of the prom... thats it....

they were not involved, but they lost out..... why are their rights being ignored or down played

now if we use your argument of its not a right its a privilege, that would mean that the female did not have her rights tramped and that this is another case of twisting a issue to fit a criteria of discrimination....

it would become a case of her rights to access a privilege on her terms was infringed upon..... so how is that denying human rights, is it a human right to go to the prom on your terms ????

the simple answer is that the issue here is centered around the female not allowed to wear a tux or take her same sex partner....

did she have to wear a tux... NO, she chose to, again thats not a human right, that is a choice.....

so you come back to the human rights, freedom of speech and expression... how do they really work....????
do they give you access to basic human needs IE: food, shelter, employment, medical care.... they bloody well should....
outside of that, you enter the area of options and decisions and choices ...
now when you apply human rights to that, you are forcing the structure of society to alter things to fit your terms and rules....

so in this case one person decided that two rules were against her...
one I support her on, the no same sex partners one.... the other, can not wear a tux, I do not, that is not a invasion of her human rights, its a personal right of expression and like the rest of the world, we are expected to follow a simple dress code....

so at the end of the day, the prom is a privilege, not a right, she chose to go, ( her right ) she chose to wear a tux ( her right ), she chose to go with her same sex partner ( her right ), there is no signs she compromised with the school board or thought about a compromise to in order to go to the prom, meet her partner there and wear a dress ( her right )

the school said no to the tux ( their right ), they said no to the same sex partner ( wrong move ) they cancelled the school prom ( their right )

its being argued that her rights are infringed upon cos she wanted to dress how she wanted and go to the prom on her terms....

now she could wear a tux, but the school has the right of refusal of entrance.... so that is not a invasion of her rights...

she was denied the right to take a same sex partner, but so was everybody else... so its not a fucking anti lesbian issue at all, its a issue that applied to everybody.... that aspect has been ignored...

the school board has cancelled the ball... so everybody has lost out...
now tell me again how am I wrong, when a number of rights have been trampled on, yet people are too blind to see the truth of the case... the discrimination applied to everybody, not just ONE PERSON.....

[FalconAngel]

You still consciously refuse get it.

You have been stuck on the dress code for too long.

All of the reports have, very clearly, indicated that the issue is not over dress code. Dress code issues are not the kind of thing that the ACLU would ever get involved with. With that in mind, what do you think that the likelihood is that the dress code is an issue here?

So since that argument has been blown away, you have decided to try a different tack. Blame the victim, instead.

It is a lame argument for a rape case and it is an even more pathetic argument when you defend those who deny equal rights to others.



now, how about people try looking at this point of view....

say for arguments sake... if the school prom is not run at all this year.... and there is 400 students that would have gone....
thats 400 students that have lost that chance to go to their school prom... thats not something you can just replace... its gone....

Yes, it is gone; not because of the single student that just wanted the school board to do the right thing by her and as per federal law.

The school board refused and the school board decided to punish all of the students with the idea of blaming the student that stood up for her lawful civil rights.


if the school decides not to run the school prom again, thats a large number of students that have lost that chance to go to a school prom....

thats a large number of students that are penalised for something they never did, or were involved in.... they lose out totally.

Punished by the perpetrators of this violation of federal law, violators of the Constitution. They have not been punished by this young woman that just wants her rights enforced. Remember that it is the school board that made the decision, not the girl.



I have seen people argue that its the females right to go to the school prom... I agree, but I also agree its the other peoples rights to go too, they have lost that right... why are you not advocating their rights and their loss too???
their rights have been infringed upon... they have been unfairly treated .... yet there is total silence in that area....

And who was it that canceled the prom simply because they didn't want a lesbian couple to be there?

The school board. They are the ones that have committed the rights infringement, not the lesbian couple that wanted to go together.



ok, its about selective activism v's equal activism.... you are selecting the victim, you are being selective about who you support.... and you are being vocal about how there should be equal rights and support.... while you remain silent about the majority that have lost out...

Selective activism??!!?? Are you serious? Talk about a ludicrous argument; you have bested yourself there.

Since when is expecting a government body to comply with the law a case of "selective activism"?

Again, they chose to make an issue of something that was not their right to make an issue of, SO SAYS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

The school board could have just let her do as she wanted, as they should have, in accordance with US federal civil rights laws.


the school prom is the same thing... its selective activism...
its optional... not obligation.... its not a job, a house, etc etc...
the female chose to make a stance, knowing the cost to others... knowing that it would unfairly penalise them and chose to ignore that fact....

You mean the minority group (school board) took that activity away as a means to punish the girl for standing up for her lawful rights?
Or how about the way that you have stood there in blind support of the actions of that same minority, that chose to ruin things for all involved just so that they could deny a lesbian her right to show up at her prom with her girlfriend?

So don't give us your hypocritical double-talk. It won't fly here.


while her fight for her rights is commendable and admirable and should have happened.... her attitude towards others was less than respectable, and like I am seeing in the thread, they are largely ignored....

What attitude would you recommend that she take when the ones that take away your rights are the same ones that are supposed to be protecting them?


when we speak of equality, its a bad look when our voices are only supporting the one person affected and not the majority affected.... it makes us as bad as the school board that singled out one person and penalised the rest cos of it.....

You must be on some pretty heavy drugs.

It is the "majority" that have penalized their own just to prevent the minority from attending with a same sex date.

All that the girl wants is to be allowed to attend with the date of her choice, JUST EXACTLY AS THE STRAIGHT STUDENTS CAN ALREADY DO.

What part of what she wants is unequal or denying equal rights to others?


now tell me, am I still wrong... ???? or am I actually talking about equality as a equal for all term....

You ARE STILL WRONG. and you are not talking about equal as equal.

Since when does the majority have superior rights over the minority? Since when is that equal?

This is a case of one group taking the rights away from another to participate in a public school function that is supposed to be open to ALL students and their dates.

Based on what you have said, you haven't the faintest fucking clue about equal rights; nor do you have the faintest fucking clue about what it takes to acquire and maintain those rights.

People far better than you or I have dedicated and given their lives for those concepts of freedom and equality. When you stand with the actions of the usurpers of those rights, then you cheapen everything that you say and make your own words lies.

You have not been talking about equality at all.
You are using a completely backward argument to protect violators of equal rights.
All of us who have learned from this nation's history know what you are defending. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

We have heard the arguments before from people who also thought that the rights and wants of the many outweigh the needs of all others.

Rights do not work the same as making laws. If you understood that, then you would not be on the slippery slope that you are on now.

[TwylaTwobits]

I guess I'm a bit bothered by the attitude that the other students should have supported her. Maybe in a perfect world that might have happened, last I heard Earth wasn't a perfect world. She lives in a small town in the Bible Belt, most of the other kids probably do NOT support her in this and that is a byproduct of where they were raised. I don't blame the school for canceling the prom but I think it was a step to duck the issue rather than deal with it.

I do hope the private individual steps forward to host the prom for all the kids and they can relax and have a memorable senior year.

[MarieDelta]

Latest news is that there will be a prom. But- it wont be at the school.

No one has "lost out".




Film director Paul Saltzman offered to provide a screening of his movie Prom Night in Mississippi as part of the entertainment at a private prom for the students. The documentary, shot in 2008, is about the first racially integrated prom at Charleston High School in North Mississippi.


Saltzman said he talked it over with his wife, co-producer Patricia Aquino, and they decided the movie had a message for the students.

"It's about tolerance, ultimately. It doesn't matter whether it is white or black or gay or straight," he said.

Constance McMillan, the 18-year-old senior who challenged the school district's policy, recorded a video message on a Facebook page set up to support her decision.

"I never thought in a thousand, billion years that there would be so many people that would support something that I am doing," she said in the message. "I think that it is great there are that many people out there that understand the difference between what is wrong and right."http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-12-no-prom-mississippi_N.htm



At least one supporter has offered to help McMillen and her classmates hold an alternate prom.

New Orleans hotel owner Sean Cummings told The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson he was so disappointed with the school board's decision he offered to transport the students in buses to the city and host a free prom at one of his properties.

"New Orleans, we're a joyful culture and a creative culture here and, if the school doesn't change its mind, we'd be delighted to offer them a prom in New Orleans," he told the newspaper. "Concluding your high school experience should be a joyful one. One shouldn't conclude that experience with all their friends on a negative note."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_prom_date

[TwylaTwobits]

I may get drawn and quartered for this but no offense meant......


Falcon, just curious exactly which federal law are you referring to when you say this girl had her federal rights violated? It doesn't fall under any of the Civil Rights bills that my memory and quick look on google show me. There are statements that Obama supports this and that, but until it's passed by Congress it's not a law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

[Long Duck Dong]

roflmao,..... you are unbelievable....

I am looking at the case from all directions, not just one.....

I am not blaming the female nor the school... and as i have stated, I regard the wearing of the tux as a personal choice, and on that the school has the right to refuse entry...

as for the canceling of the prom, can you please copy and paste a admission by the school so to the exact reason they canceled it, and I do not want a copy and paste media article, I want a statement from the school please

I said the students lost out cos of the canceling of the prom, not cos of the female, but the prom..... they are not wanting to attend a female

please show me federal law that states that a person may dress as they see fit and not be refused entry to a establishment...


now you clearly regard the rights of all students to not be equal in respects to the prom... you are implying that the rights of one student outweigh the right of everybody to attend the prom....
so please tell me how the rights of everybody to attend a prom are not equal rights, is there some federal law that states that the rights of one student to attend the prom, is some how more equal than the rights of every other student to attend the prom

I find it interesting that I can comprehend that all students have the same rights to attend the prom... as equals, ... and that right should be balanced for all
but its the personal choices and decisions of each person that can change it from a right to attend the prom, to one of being denied the right to attend a function

now tell me oh mr equal rights.... at what point did the decision of the one person, change the rights of the rest of the students to attend the prom...
answer is never

the students never lost their rights cos of the female... they lost their access cos of the ruling by the school...

they still have the right to go to the prom, they just have no prom to go to....

so tell me again, oh mister of telling me I am wrong......

did the female lost the right to attend the prom... or access to the prom on her terms ?????
did the other students lose their access to the prom too, when they were doing it on the schools terms....

and do they all now EQUALLY have no fuckin prom to go to ?????

and like I have said, I live in a country with civil and human rights... we managed to get it here, and I was one of the people that helped get it in NZ
so you are doing well telling me I have no idea about civil rights etc etc....

so you can yabber on about all your heroes and whose to blame etc etc... and how 244 odd years ago you fought wars for rights...
and then you can go research NZ and see that we did it all in less than 200 years....

we have equal marriage for gays and lesbians etc, we have anti discrimination etc... we have a country, like others that worked out how to live as a equal nation
your country is as divided as the way you cut up and copy / paste posts... and you are telling me that I know nothing about civil rights ????

my country got their act together.......

[TwylaTwobits]

I'm very glad they are going to be able to attend a prom, however the case law you are thinking of was in Toronto per the article.

[Long Duck Dong]

Latest news is that there will be a prom. But- it wont be at the school.

No one has "lost out".

thank you for posting that marie, thats good news,... thats good pro active support for all the students....

thats the way that thing should be done.... nobody loses out, the students get their prom, and I am quessing that the female gets her rights too the tux and the same sex partner....

this is what I regard as strong and balanced proactive protest.... it frees up the way for the ACLU and others to work to ensure that the issue doesn't happen again, and that the students still have their prom and that none of them lose out.....

its the same method used in NZ and its worked well

thanks again marie for posting that info

[traveling1965]

I agree it is riduculous and they are getting tons of grief for it right now. The only good news in this is that one of the hotels here in New Orleans has offered to allow the students to have their prom in the hotel. They should be able to have it at home but if their parents and other adults will not correct the problem at least someone is offering an option.

[*jeannie*]

so its not a fucking anti lesbian issue at all, its a issue that applied to everybody.... that aspect has been ignored...

i agree... it does apply to everybody and that makes it an anti-homosexual (anti-lesbians and anti-gays) issue. not to mention anti-bisexual since some of them may have wanted to take a same-sex partner also.

*

as for the tuxedo, the school board is obviously anti-crossdresser too.

[Long Duck Dong]

i agree... it does apply to everybody and that makes it an anti-homosexual (anti-lesbians and anti-gays) issue. not to mention anti-bisexual since some of them may have wanted to take a same-sex partner also.

*

as for the tuxedo, the school board is obviously anti-crossdresser too.

my view of that aspect is more broad....

to me the same sex ruling is unfair on any person that wants to take a partner of the same sex, be it a lover, or a friend or a family member....

there would be a number of awkward people that may be dateless for the prom and love to take a sister or brother to the prom... and the ruling would remove that right.....

that takes it from the anti gay / les / bi aspect and moves it to the all sexualities area....

a hetero female would not be able to take her sister, in the same way the lesbian would not be allowed to take her partner.....
thats why I was amused to see it discrimination against a lesbian person, when it affected all the people at the ball....

I am willing to say that the reason its focussed on the lesbian aspect, rather than the hetero aspect is that if there was no gay person involved, nobody would give a shit.... and the article never would have appeared on the net.....

or to use the words of another poster... it would not be newsworthy...

[Jade Pecker]

I think denying glbtq kids the opportunity to go to their own prom is dumb. True, I didn't go to my OWN prom (wasn't exactly what you'd call popular), but if two girls want to go to the prom together, why not? I was class of 84, and ALL the gay/lez kids were in the closet, and about all i could do back then was keep their secrets, but that I gladly did. :bibounce:

[rdy2go]

I heard a phone interview on a Canadian radio show with this young lady, she was calm collected and made her points very well, she told the story and didn't get emotional about it at all. She said there probably will be a private prom for the school this year but, this young woman and her girlfriend will not be allowed to take part. (I hope that changes) She is taking some heat for it from her classmates, but all she was doing was sticking up for herself. It was not hard to hear the disappointment about the decision in her voice. When asked what she will do instead of prom, she said that her girlfriend and her will probably get dressed up and go out on their own to mark the occasion. It is very sad indeed. I wish her well.

[12voltman59]

The best way for the girl to handle this in the future---with her smarts-I am sure she is going to go to a good college---hopefully find a great job when she graduates---makes tons of money and comes back to the town in six or seven years and pays for a totally kick ass private prom where everyone is welcome no matter what----and her prom comes to take the place of the one the school hosts.

[FalconAngel]

I may get drawn and quartered for this but no offense meant......


Falcon, just curious exactly which federal law are you referring to when you say this girl had her federal rights violated? It doesn't fall under any of the Civil Rights bills that my memory and quick look on google show me. There are statements that Obama supports this and that, but until it's passed by Congress it's not a law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

I take no offense at your question. After all, how does one learn if one never questions anything?

The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. We would have fewer laws if our state supreme courts and our federal Supreme courts looked over each and every law that has been enacted, to insure that they met Constitutional mandates. Sadly that is quite a lengthy process and we must wait for unconstitutional laws to be challenged in court to get them struck down or kept. Refer to Prop 8 as an example.

Since wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate, I am against using it as an authoritative reference.
Here is what the Constitution of the United States says: (highlights are mine, for clarity)

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Sections 2 - 5 go into other things regarding the powers and responsibilities of public officials and Congress and such, which are primarily unrelated to this particular subject.

And the 14th Amendment does not include the other federal protections, which were more recently put in place, to insure that those groups, who have been "believed" by haters, to be exempt from protection (because they are "different"), are protected from the actions of said haters.

As a military veteran, My oath of enlistment obligates me to support the US Constitution in it's entirety. An oath to do the right and honorable thing does not stop being an obligation simply because I no longer carry a rifle. Since, also under federal law, I can be ordered to pick it up again, should the need arise to defend that same Constitution again.

I wish our public servants (politicians, school boards, city councils, county councils, judges, etc.) cared as much for our civil rights.

[*jeannie*]

my view of that aspect is more broad....

to me the same sex ruling is unfair on any person that wants to take a partner of the same sex, be it a lover, or a friend or a family member....

there would be a number of awkward people that may be dateless for the prom and love to take a sister or brother to the prom... and the ruling would remove that right.....

that takes it from the anti gay / les / bi aspect and moves it to the all sexualities area....

i do not agree... no heterosexual student in the bible belt would take a same-sex date to the prom for fear of being thought a homosexual or bisexual. not to mention fear of loss of friends, attack, etc. if people came to believe they were not straight. they would either take an opposite sex date (lover, friend or family member), go alone or not go at all.

[TwylaTwobits]

Falcon, I do know the Constitution. I guess what I'm asking is what part of the Federal Law says she has the right to go to a school event dressed in a tux and with her same sex partner? "Pursuit of happiness" is a catchall phrase. I wish there was a federal law to cover this, but sometimes, and this applies to all Americans, your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.

The school event was being held in a small town, it was organized by a small town, it was paid for by a small town, the school board of elected officials in a small town made a decision to just cancel rather than fight what was going to be a landmark case, either way.

I live in a small town, where everyone knows your name, where you don't use turn signals on some roads cause everyone knows where you are going and what you are going to do when you get there. I'm not saying their attitudes are right, I'm just saying it's the attitude of the small town in a Bible belt.

The town I live in has five major Christian and Baptist churches. Most people belong to one or the other, I sit home on a Sunday, not paying lip service to a church, and worship my Goddess all week not just on one day. But I'm a 38 year old woman, my choices are my own and affect no one but me. To a teenager making a choice that so alienated most of her classmates, and this is the part that bothers me, actually put those that "didn't care" into the "you ruined our senior year" group.

Does the young girl plan to remain in that town after high school? Does she realize that people in small towns have long memories and she is no longer going to be known as Constance McMillan straight A student. She'll be known as that les that got the prom canceled. I just think there are repercussions that haven't even yet been thought of, small towns have a mindset very different to the bigger metro areas. Unfortunately, in most cases the mindset is a closed one.

I just pray that the dynamics in that town that have shifted due to this do not turn ugly or even worse, deadly.

[FalconAngel]

I am with Jeannie on that one.

LDD, your argument is not only a completely false presumption, but is really reaching.

So what is the actual harm in saying that no straight student may bring a same gender partner to prom? none.
What you are saying is tantamount to saying "we are preventing you from doing what you don't want to do, anyway".
Since it doesn't affect me, then so what?

And the harm of telling a gay/bi student the same thing? Plenty. Then you are saying "We are preventing you from doing what you choose to do, just because we think we can"

It is the "I don't like it so the rest of you can't do it" attitude.

Who was hurt by her decision to take her girlfriend to the prom?

No one. No other students would have been affected in any way.

Who was hurt by the school's response to that?

Every student, not just the girl in question.

The school board wanted to take a "Scorched Earth" policy to it, so as soon as they realized that the girl was going to stand up for her rights, they did exactly that. It is her school too, and the board should have stood up to protect her rights equal to her fellow students.

If they couldn't get their prejudiced way, then they will close the prom. Not exactly a wise policy, nor is it a smart policy.

[FalconAngel]

Falcon, I do know the Constitution. I guess what I'm asking is what part of the Federal Law says she has the right to go to a school event dressed in a tux and with her same sex partner? "Pursuit of happiness" is a catchall phrase. I wish there was a federal law to cover this, but sometimes, and this applies to all Americans, your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.

Here in the US, the school board works for the county, not the city, so they are obligated to consider all students in their jurisdiction, not just the prejudices of a single small town.

I really do not believe that the tux thing was the issue. That is a small matter, but she did want her girlfriend to go with her and as the couple that they are.

As others have said, there has been no dress code, other than "formal attire". Anything beyond that is a matter of taste for the individual. On that note, the school has no other authority over who they bring with them as long as there is no intent to commit a crime there (but that part is really just common sense).



The school event was being held in a small town, it was organized by a small town, it was paid for by a small town, the school board of elected officials in a small town made a decision to just cancel rather than fight what was going to be a landmark case, either way.

Actually, it is still the county that did all of that, even though the event was held in a small town, they are just as obligated to not violate the rights of any student to bring their significant other with them to the prom, no matter the gender of that partner.

That goes back to equal protection as mentioned in the 14th Amendment.



I live in a small town, where everyone knows your name, where you don't use turn signals on some roads cause everyone knows where you are going and what you are going to do when you get there. I'm not saying their attitudes are right, I'm just saying it's the attitude of the small town in a Bible belt.

I know all about small towns, having grown up in small towns. And I know what you are saying, but even small towns are obligated to do the right thing by every person in their town, just as every county and state has to, as well.



The town I live in has five major Christian and Baptist churches. Most people belong to one or the other, I sit home on a Sunday, not paying lip service to a church, and worship my Goddess all week not just on one day. But I'm a 38 year old woman, my choices are my own and affect no one but me. To a teenager making a choice that so alienated most of her classmates, and this is the part that bothers me, actually put those that "didn't care" into the "you ruined our senior year" group.

I know all about that. We had 3 churches in the town I grew up in. One Catholic, one Lutheran (my late grandmother went there) and one that was Episcopalian.

But the only place that they placed any religious prejudices in were church fetes and the single Catholic school in town. The public schools were conspicuously devoid of any prejudice enforced by the school board for the county.



Does the young girl plan to remain in that town after high school?

Since it is her home, she may or may not stay there. Most kids want to get out of their small towns, but that has no bearing on this issue, does it?


Does she realize that people in small towns have long memories and she is no longer going to be known as Constance McMillan straight A student. She'll be known as that les that got the prom canceled. I just think there are repercussions that haven't even yet been thought of, small towns have a mindset very different to the bigger metro areas. Unfortunately, in most cases the mindset is a closed one. [/QUOTE]

Maybe she will, but maybe she won't, again, that is an issue that only she can know.

I do know this much;
She grew up there and she has roots there. That is also something that small town folks also take into consideration.
If you have ever seen the show "Northern Exposure", then that is pretty much like most small towns in the US. They probably already knew that she was gay before all of this came about, so it is not likely a surprise to them.
Should that be the case, then they already see her as "quirky" or something of that nature.
As a person living in a small town, you probably know that already.



I just pray that the dynamics in that town that have shifted due to this do not turn ugly or even worse, deadly.

We can only hope.

[Long Duck Dong]

I am with Jeannie on that one.

LDD, your argument is not only a completely false presumption, but is really reaching.

So what is the actual harm in saying that no straight student may bring a same gender partner to prom? none.
What you are saying is tantamount to saying "we are preventing you from doing what you don't want to do, anyway".
Since it doesn't affect me, then so what?

And the harm of telling a gay/bi student the same thing? Plenty. Then you are saying "We are preventing you from doing what you choose to do, just because we think we can"

It is the "I don't like it so the rest of you can't do it" attitude.

Who was hurt by her decision to take her girlfriend to the prom?

No one. No other students would have been affected in any way.

Who was hurt by the school's response to that?

Every student, not just the girl in question.

The school board wanted to take a "Scorched Earth" policy to it, so as soon as they realized that the girl was going to stand up for her rights, they did exactly that. It is her school too, and the board should have stood up to protect her rights equal to her fellow students.

If they couldn't get their prejudiced way, then they will close the prom. Not exactly a wise policy, nor is it a smart policy.

and you have clearly stated what I have been saying....

its only a issue if its concerning lgbt people..... if it doesn't concern them or treats others the same, its a non issue....

so like I have said... unequal applying of equal rights... its only seen as infringement of a persons rights if they are lgbt ... if they are hetero... who cares, its only a heteros same rights that have been infringed upon...

the school made the same rule for all... but its only a issue cos a lesbian is involved... and here I was thinking that all people were equal .... clearly its a case of selective activism like I said and was told I was wrong....

the only reason the ACLU got involved by the sounds is not cos a large number of students did not have the freedom to take a same sex partner to a prom, but cos one lesbian did not have the same right as well....

its no bloody wonder that the US is still struggling with equal rights for all.... they have forgotten what EQUAL and FOR ALL actually mean

[*jeannie*]

so like I have said... unequal applying of equal rights... its only seen as infringement of a persons rights if they are lgbt ... if they are hetero... who cares, its only a heteros same rights that have been infringed upon...

it is only infringing on the rights of the homosexual and bisexual students. heterosexual students would not claim the right to same-sex partners. thus, it cannot infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. only homosexual and bisexual students have had their civil rights violated in this case.


the school made the same rule for all...

clearly the rule does not apply to heterosexual students as none would want to take a same-sex partner.


but its only a issue cos a lesbian is involved... and here I was thinking that all people were equal .... clearly its a case of selective activism like I said and was told I was wrong....

selective activism? no heterosexual students have been denied the right to take a same-sex partner. why? because none of them would want to do so since THEY ARE HETEROSEXUAL.

it is a waste of time to defend the rights of a group (heterosexuals in this case) who do not even want that right (because that right truly does not apply to them).


the only reason the ACLU got involved by the sounds is not cos a large number of students did not have the freedom to take a same sex partner to a prom, but cos one lesbian did not have the same right as well....

well duh. it is not a violation of the civil liberties of anyone who is not homosexual or bisexual.


its no bloody wonder that the US is still struggling with equal rights for all.... they have forgotten what EQUAL and FOR ALL actually mean

it seems you think that heterosexuals want the right to conduct their lives as if they are homosexual or bisexual.

[Long Duck Dong]

it is only infringing on the rights of the homosexual and bisexual students. heterosexual students would not claim the right to same-sex partners. thus, it cannot infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. only homosexual and bisexual students have had their civil rights violated in this case.



clearly the rule does not apply to heterosexual students as none would want to take a same-sex partner.



selective activism? no heterosexual students have been denied the right to take a same-sex partner. why? because none of them would want to do so since THEY ARE HETEROSEXUAL.

it is a waste of time to defend the rights of a group (heterosexuals in this case) who do not even want that right (because that right truly does not apply to them).



well duh. it is not a violation of the civil liberties of anyone who is not homosexual or bisexual.



it seems you think that heterosexuals want the right to conduct their lives as if they are homosexual or bisexual.

hang on a sec, are you reading the schools prom ruling as partners of a sexual / intimate nature, or partners as in a partner of the same gender that can be a family member, friend or associate...

if you are reading it as same sex sexual intimate partner... then by that, it implies that all people that take a partner to a prom, are in a intimate / sexual relationship with them..... and I am sure that is not the case

by selective, I am refering to the fact that the wording of the ruling states that NO person may take along another person of the same gender... be it a family member, school friend, friend etc.... but people are only applying it to a partner of a intimate / sexual nature... and the wording of the prom ruling doesn't say that.... you are saying that...

remember its a small town of 4000 people, by the time you work out the total number of people that are eligible for the prom, you may have 100 people... now say that its 60 / 40 mix...
now that would give you 20 people left that have to choose to go to the prom dateless or not go.... as they are not allowed to take a sex sex friend as a prom partner.....

[*jeannie*]

by selective, I am refering to the fact that the wording of the ruling states that NO person may take along another person of the same gender... be it a family member, school friend, friend etc.... but people are only applying it to a partner of a intimate / sexual nature... and the wording of the prom ruling doesn't say that.... you are saying that...

no, i'm not.

everyone knows the ruling only really applies to homosexual and bisexual people.

you, however, are somehow ignoring that and that's just what the school board wants people to do.

[FalconAngel]

Jeannie is right.

If you want to understand what the school board is really doing, which you don't understand at all, try living in the very puritanical Bible Belts here in the US. The Southern Bible belt is the worst of them, for the most part.

There is no prejudice like US Bible belt prejudice. Remember that we learned from the right wing Christians that were so right wing that they couldn't live amongst other Christians (they considered them too "ungodly" and tolerant to live amongst).

LDD, you have been giving these people too much credit. Use some logic here, If you really believe that they are that adamant about the dress code, then how bad would they be about a lesbian couple showing up at the prom?

I'm actually surprised that Pat Robertson hasn't piped in by now, on how evil the girl is for being gay.

That is the level of stupid and hate that our extreme right wingers are in the Bible belts.

Stop giving those people more credit than they deserve.

[Long Duck Dong]

the only way that jeanie can be right is if you say that any rights that can afforded to all students and that are infringed upon, are null and void in the case of non lgbt people..... or simply that the right to take a same sex partner to a prom, is not a right of all students, only lgbt people....

would I be correct in saying that that would make a complete mockery of the US Constitution and equal rights for all

please tell me how the right to take a same sex partner to a prom can only be infringed upon is you are LGBT and if you are not lgbt, how the same right is not infringed upon....
is that not saying in simple terms that there is not equal rights in the us and that you both do not see the unbalanced and totally anti us constitutional, that is..... as by both of your own admittance, you are saying that the only rights infringed upon, are the females rights, even tho the same right has been denied to every student going to the prom

now tell me about, what does the US constitution say about equal rights for all people and why it is that some people feel happy that spout off about the constitution, yet in the very next breath, deny the very basis of it....

[Long Duck Dong]

no, i'm not.

everyone knows the ruling only really applies to homosexual and bisexual people.

you, however, are somehow ignoring that and that's just what the school board wants people to do.

feel free to post the statement by the school board that states its a rule that only applies to LGBT students....

btw I have been in contact with a lawyer friend in the US.... he said, to make a state like that, requires conjunction on the side of the prosecution and the defendant has a strong case to support the fact that the school stated there is a no discrimination policy in place and its in writing...
heresay evidence is not admissible either

the only evidence to support the prosecutions case at this stage, is heresay and conjunction, there is no proof to support the assumption that the ruling against same sex partners is purely anti LGBT........ as there is a long standing history and pattern with the school of encouraging opposite partner contact, long before the lesbian student was at the school... so to that point, the prom ruling was not created to infringe on her rights, it was a long standing rule anyway that needed updating due to changes in the law

its amazing how much info you can find out if you actually look for it...

[*jeannie*]

LDD,

what you do not understand is that if a person does not want a particular right, they are free to decline it. if a person declines it, then it is not a right of his/hers by virtue of his/her own choice.

it is not a right of heterosexual people to take a same-sex partner simply because they do not want to take a same-sex partner. thus, they decline to accept that right for themselves.

you cannot force everyone to accept all rights offered to them so that it will be a right of everyone.

[*jeannie*]

feel free to post the statement by the school board that states its a rule that only applies to LGBT students....

you know the school board would never make such a statement as it would incriminate them. my statment is based on the fact that some of us are just not blind (by accident or design) to what is really going on.


btw I have been in contact with a lawyer friend in the US....he said, to make a state like that, requires conjunction on the side of the prosecution and the defendant has a strong case to support the fact that the school stated there is a no discrimination policy in place and its in writing...

heresay evidence is not admissible either

it will be all too obvious to a federal judge that since the girl asking if she could bring her same-sex partner to the prom precipitated the cancellation of the prom that it is a case of discrimination. that is all a federal judge needs to know and, knowing that, the federal judge will definitely rule in favor of the girl.

your "lawyer friend in the us" should have told you that but i suspect he is either some sort of "one-horse town" lawyer or just incompetent. either way, he is obviously not up to par on the powers and legal leeway federal judges have here in the us.


its amazing how much info you can find out if you actually look for it...

yes, it is and you obviously have not looked enough.

[Long Duck Dong]

you know the school board would never make such a statement as it would incriminate them. my statment is based on the fact that some of us are just not blind (by accident or design) to what is really going on.



it will be all too obvious to a federal judge that since the girl asking if she could bring her same-sex partner to the prom precipitated the cancellation of the prom that it is a case of discrimination. that is all a federal judge needs to know and, knowing that, the federal judge will definitely rule in favor of the girl.

your "lawyer friend in the us" should have told you that but i suspect he is either some sort of "one-horse town" lawyer or just incompetent. either way, he is obviously not up to par on the powers and legal leeway federal judges have here in the us.



yes, it is and you obviously have not looked enough.

exactly, so you agree that you have no proof of the school boards reasoning, only conjunction and assumption

a examination of the schools past history would reveal facts that would prove that the school did not create this rule just to penalize the female in question, therefore proving that what happened with the prom is based around the female is harder to prove... as again, you are using conjunction
while the school has hard proof

the aclu did not have the grounds to go after the school for the female as they also lacked the proof needed to prove discrimination on the grounds of sexuality... strange that...

the school was in breach of the law on non discrimination but not on the grounds of discrimination against a lesbian, but on the grounds of breach of right over ANY student that wished to take a friend or partner of the same gender to the prom.... as proving that the school was discriminating against the lesbian student would require proving that in past years, any ruling of the same nature for the prom was on deference to students on the grounds of sexuality, again something you can not prove... but the school can prove that the ruling have been in existence in the past as well, before the lesbian student was at the school....

my lawyer friend ...no hes not a one horse town laywer... thats why I asked for his opinion and his ruling.... he should know, the law firm of which he is a partner in, is one that deals with high level cases and one area of the firms work is the area of discrimination and equal rights work....

so yeah... once again, we see the classic signs of * it must be discrimination by legal definition cos there is a LGBT person involved v's the a number of people have their rights infringed upon but they do not matter cos they are not lgbt *

its like I have said before.... equal rights for ALL people.... and all the students have the same rights to take a same sex partner to the prom... the ruling that they ALL could not, is a breach of the law....
so please, if you could, provide me with the legal ruling and law that states that anti discrimination can not apply equally to a group and can only apply to the LGBT person/s in a group if discrimination applies to the group as a whole

or just admit that you have no proof of your claims, only conjunction and assumption and lack the ability to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the school acted against the female only with their prom ruling and not the rest of the students..... and with the cancelling of the prom, that it was only to prevent the female going to the prom..... then tell me if your case is so strong, why did the aclu not go after it like a hungry dog with a bone, but instead, pussyfooted around the whole issue and their main concern was forcing the school to hold the prom....

[*jeannie*]

exactly, so you agree that you have no proof of the school boards reasoning, only conjunction and assumption

i never said or implied that i did. however, everyone knows the real reason the school board did it. everyone, except you, that is.


a examination of the schools past history would reveal facts that would prove that the school did not create this rule just to penalize the female in question, therefore proving that what happened with the prom is based around the female is harder to prove... as again, you are using conjunction while the school has hard proof

i must point out two things here.

1) this is the second time you have used the word "conjunction" in place of the word "conjecture". conjecture is the correct word to be using here.

2) you used conjecture yourself when you made that statement.


the aclu did not have the grounds to go after the school for the female as they also lacked the proof needed to prove discrimination on the grounds of sexuality... strange that...

yes, they did. the aclu knows that all a federal judge needs to know is that the girl asking for permission to take her girlfriend to the prom precipitated the cancellation of the prom and the judge will rule in her favor on the grounds of discrimination.


my lawyer friend ...no hes not a one horse town laywer... thats why I asked for his opinion and his ruling.... he should know, the law firm of which he is a partner in, is one that deals with high level cases and one area of the firms work is the area of discrimination and equal rights work....

many people have titles. your friend, the lawyer, has one. however, a title never made anyone competent. your lawyer friend clearly does not know federal judges very well.

[Long Duck Dong]

roflmao, if that is your legal system, no wonder you lot can't get equal rights sorted




The case in front of the court today is one to make a ruling over the case of a female v's a school board of a case of discrimination, shall we began

what ruling was made by the school board in regards to same sex partners and how was it discriminating against the female
it said no same sex partners, so thats discrimination against LGBT people

Does it state that its a LGBT only ruling ?
no

So how do you seek to prove to the court that it discriminates against LGBT people ?
Cos we say so and cos we say that anybody that says that the ruling does say that is wrong, and we know this because we read a media article and decided that we know what happened

does the school have a statement of no discrimination
Yes, but that means nothing even tho its in accordance with legal rulings, as far as we are concerned, the rest of the students do not matter as they are not lgbt

So you are saying to the court that the no same sex partner ruling by the school board applied to all students equally, but its only discrimination against a LGBT student and not a infringement of the rights of all students ?
Hey judge, go learn your laws... the laws of equality and equal rights only matter if there is a LGBT person involved, if there is not, the non lgbt can get fucked, their rights do not matter

SO we have a school that has a no discrimination policy, made a ruling about no same sex partners at the prom, and they enforced that rule equally to all the students, but you are saying that is beside the point, that its against a lgbt student and therefore its wrong
judge are you think or something... the other students do not matter, what the school board says doesn't matter, what others think doesn't matter, what matters is what we say,... now we have no proof other than conjecture and a opinion formed from reading media articles so therefore we are right

SO this court is to understand that you have no proof of discrimination on a sexuality basis, that the ruling was across the board, that the prom was cancelled cos the student, cos you say so, that her rights were infringed upon, but the rest of the students rights do not matter, and that this all most be true cos you say so and that the us constitution applies to all people equally, but in this case, screw the rights of all the other students they do not matter and that I need to rule on this case in favour of a female and a plaintiff that has no proof, only conjecture ?
good ol judge, yeah you need to rule in our favour cos we say so


the school can show a history of non discrimination conduct in the nature of prom rulings, can show a reasoning for the canceling of the prom that is in accordance with the criteria of education and the guidelines of the state board, that shows that their decision was based around the path of least disruption to the rights of all the students at the school and their right to a good and balanced education, free from media attention on the students and the school, and the school is under no obligation to hold a school prom at all, and you beleive that I should overrule their decision in this matter because you say that its about LGBT rights..
listen, you ol fool, we do not need to prove anything, the female is LGBT thats all that matters, screw the rest of the students and their rights, what ever the school board says or what proof they have, we have said that this is about a LGBT female, so therefore we can quote whatever laws we want, twist them to fit what we say, make assumptions without proof, tell everybody to saying that the female is the cause of the prom being cancelled is wrong, but stand here in court and say the school board cancelled the prom cos of her and thats the bottom line.... we are LGBT and we say so, so due process doesn't apply, now rule in our favour, dumbass

[Long Duck Dong]

now I have looked into this case a lil more.... and earlier in the thread I mentioned about a compromise by the female, if there was any attempt at a compromise.... apparently there was

Back in December Constance inquired about the possibility of bringing her girlfriend to the upcoming event and was told it was against school policy. According to her the rule is meant to prevent non-coupled students from purchasing tickets at a discount price; guest tickets are only $10.

As a compromise she offered to arrive separately from her date who would meet her inside but was told that her choice of attire, a tuxedo, might be disruptive to the other students and if anyone complained of their dancing, they would be told to leave. After explaining to her principal that the policy was discriminatory against homosexual students and still being refused, she took her complaint to the ACLU and the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition.

now we see the reason for the no same sex ruling..... it was to stop students using a loophole in the ticket purchase....
the loophole is that two females could get tickets then two males could get tickets cheap then hook up once inside the prom, and the school would suffer a loss if students used the loophole to gain a monetary advantage...

now yes the policy did not take into consideration, LGBT people.... however it doesn't discriminate against LGBT people.... the rule is faulty in respect to the choice of partner.... as I had stated....

article link (http://www.examiner.com/x-21239-Oakland-Skepticism-Examiner~y2010m3d13-In-response-to-Mississippi-schoolboard-Humanists-pledges-20000-for-LGBT-friendly-prom)

[Long Duck Dong]

Addition to the other post and note the difference in statements

constances statement (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/03/02-7)

McMillen said she approached school officials shortly before a memo about prom was circulated at school on February 5 that said same-sex dates would not be allowed, because she knew same-sex dates had been banned from prom in the past. McMillen met with the assistant principal and later the superintendent, who told her that they would not be allowed to arrive together, that she would not be allowed to wear a tuxedo to prom, and that she and her girlfriend might be thrown out if their presence made any other students “uncomfortable” at the April 2 event.


now if you look at the court papers

court papers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/28221069/McMillen-vs-Itawamba-County-School)

look at nature of the action paragraph 2

constance was told that they may be ejected if there are objections to them being there together.....


now thats a interesting statement, cos you can not eject people from a event if there is objections to them being there if they are not able to be there in the first place....

the court papers show that she was allowed to go to the prom with her pattern, she was not stopped from going, but she was told the terms on which she and her partner were allowed to be there at the prom.....

so now we have a number of differing statements by the female about her actions and what she actually did do and know about the schools ruling,.. and court papers that show that she was not stopped from going to the prom, however, she was not allowed to dictate her terms on attending the prom as they could cause disruption to the prom....

I am curious as to why her first statement is at odds with her second statement and the official statement....

[Musings]

I read that story too. How more heavy handed can they get? I also feel sorry for the girls involved. They will be harassed all through the year at school and then some.

[shybipinay]

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
a examination of the schools past history would reveal facts that would prove that the school did not create this rule just to penalize the female in question, therefore proving that what happened with the prom is based around the female is harder to prove... as again, you are using conjunction while the school has hard proof

*jeannie*

i must point out two things here.

1) this is the second time you have used the word "conjunction" in place of the word "conjecture". conjecture is the correct word to be using here.

2) you used conjecture yourself when you made that statement.

3) There is no such thing as "past history". History is the past so to say "past history" is to be grammatically redundant and inncorrect.


My goodness LDD don't you proof read your post before you click "send"?


........the court papers show that she was allowed to go to the prom with her pattern, she was not stopped from going,...........

Don't you mean "partner"? Not "pattern".

You're argument is already so deeply flawed, that you are only adding to your demise with your grammatical inaccuracies. It's really obvious you just don't get it.

[rissababynta]

3) There is no such thing as "past history". History is the past so to say "past history" is to be grammatically redundant and inncorrect.


My goodness LDD don't you proof read your post before you click "send"?



Don't you mean "partner"? Not "pattern".

You're argument is already so deeply flawed, that you are only adding to your demise with your grammatical inaccuracies. It's really obvious you just don't get it.

It's an internet conversation...not a college paper lol. Calm down, you'll live longer and happier :):tongue:

[*jeannie*]

The case in front of the court today is one to make a ruling over the case of a female v's a school board of a case of discrimination, shall we began

<deleted a nonsensical "how it would go" scenario based on ignorance of us federal judges and their powers>

it is clear to me (someone who has been around federal courts and federal judges her whole life) that neither you nor your "lawyer friend in the us" is very knowledgable of federal judges and the leeway they have in making their rulings.

[*jeannie*]

now we see the reason for the no same sex ruling..... it was to stop students using a loophole in the ticket purchase....
the loophole is that two females could get tickets then two males could get tickets cheap then hook up once inside the prom, and the school would suffer a loss if students used the loophole to gain a monetary advantage...

constance is a 12th grader. her girlfriend is a 10th grader. both are students at IAHS. the school's memo states...

"The fee for a Junior or Senior is $35; a guest ticket for $10 (see guest criteria below)."

now you look below to the guest criteria and it states...

"may be in grade 9 or 10 at IAHS"

constance's girlfriend would thus be considered a guest.

at no time did either of the girl's try to get her ticket cheaper and i am sure they know they could not get away with such a thing since the school would know the two girls are students there and what grades they are in.

also... it seems here you are implying that the school board cancelled the prom for everyone because two girls tried to get cheaper tickets. something the two girls never tried to do.


now yes the policy did not take into consideration, LGBT people.... however it doesn't discriminate against LGBT people....

it does discriminate, whether by accident or design, against GLBT people.

*

i have noticed that you appear to be trying to explain away discrimination against GLBT people in this case while attempting to appear to not be doing so. i do hope that is not the case.

[Annika L]

Ducky, do you honestly believe that if a girl had written to the School Board requesting that she be able to take her cousin who was visiting from out of town, the Board would have denied this request?

I mean, ok if you do...there's no way to prove it one way or the other. Maybe I'm just being uncharitable toward that culture, but it seems like blind/naive optimism in that part of this country to believe that the School Board's refusal did not truly deal with the girl's sexuality, and that the rules *would* be applied unevenly to straight vs. LGBT students. I'm not making a case that would hold up in court...just an observation.

And although I tend to agree with the spirit of Jeannie's position, I must take issue with this notion:


...if a person does not want a particular right, they are free to decline it. if a person declines it, then it is not a right of his/hers by virtue of his/her own choice.


Are you saying that if I choose not to exercise a right, then I don't *have* that right? Since I turned 21, I've supposedly had the right to drink alcohol. But I don't always want to drink alcohol (*looks at the skeptical audience* I said not *always*, ok??). Certainly, though, at those times I still have the *right* to drink alcohol! If *anyone* had the right to take a same-sex partner to that prom, certainly heterosexual people would have had that same right every bit as much as queer people...it's just a right they (in most cases) would have chosen not to exercise.

[*jeannie*]

Are you saying that if I choose not to exercise a right, then I don't *have* that right?

i'm sure people (most of them anyway) understand what i mean by my statement and i won't try to explain it to you so you can understand it because that's how the last conflict between you and i got started.

[crazy_cat_lady]

Okay first off Duck. You seem to love to assume that the girl knew that the prom would be cancelled if she pressed this issue, and just didnt give a flying fuck about the rest of the students. Which I tend to think is not true snce she seems a nice enough girl.

See we are looking at it from her perspective you are looking at it from the other students, who may not know all the information. See I tend to think the school board did the same ass hat move some teachers do. Where a student does something wrong or what the teacher thinks is wrong, and the teacher takes away recess for the whole class so it isolates them from the rest of the class as punishment. Do you understand what its like to be hated by your whole school, possably your whole town...

probably not since you sit in you fucking "perfectly equal" country. Well guess what? We are Americans and we still have to deal with shit like this.

And you really think its still about dress code and stupid trivial bullshit after reading this?

"If anyone complained of their dancing, they would be told to leave"

Really? Thats not discrimination in the least...not one bit...nope. (sarcasm)

And do you really think that in a bible belt town no one would complain about 2 lesbians slow dancing together? hmmm....does a snowball melt in the microwave?

I dont know what high school you went to, but even here in the godless north there were popular pricks that just loved to stir up trouble any chance they could.

so theres my :2cents: and I hope you choke on em.

[Long Duck Dong]

Okay first off Duck. You seem to love to assume that the girl knew that the prom would be cancelled if she pressed this issue, and just didnt give a flying fuck about the rest of the students. Which I tend to think is not true snce she seems a nice enough girl.

See we are looking at it from her perspective you are looking at it from the other students, who may not know all the information. See I tend to think the school board did the same ass hat move some teachers do. Where a student does something wrong or what the teacher thinks is wrong, and the teacher takes away recess for the whole class so it isolates them from the rest of the class as punishment. Do you understand what its like to be hated by your whole school, possably your whole town...

probably not since you sit in you fucking "perfectly equal" country. Well guess what? We are Americans and we still have to deal with shit like this.

And you really think its still about dress code and stupid trivial bullshit after reading this?

"If anyone complained of their dancing, they would be told to leave"

Really? Thats not discrimination in the least...not one bit...nope. (sarcasm)

And do you really think that in a bible belt town no one would complain about 2 lesbians slow dancing together? hmmm....does a snowball melt in the microwave?

I dont know what high school you went to, but even here in the godless north there were popular pricks that just loved to stir up trouble any chance they could.

so theres my :2cents: and I hope you choke on em.

the female stated herself that she was told that the school board would cancel the prom..... go read the original post article

in links I have posted, she stated herself that she knew the reason for the no same sex ruling had nothing to do with sexuality...

there are a number of statements that the female made, but has turned them around to make them out to be anti lesbian....

now in order for it to be anti LGBT, you have to prove that the reasoning for any action or ruling, is created to oppose the LGBT, but not any other person...
there is more than enuf proof, including the court papers to prove that the school boards rulings were NOT made with the female in mood, they were made across the student range, and AFFECTED the lesbian student because of the way she wanted to do things....

now the part about the dancing, that you twisted around, is laughable...
for a start, normal dancing is not offensive, and if a person reacts to normal dancing by two lesbian females, YES its discrimination on the grounds of sexuality...
but you have to prove once again, that the school board were saying that any person that objected to them dancing, had a legit case....
when if you look at the trend of the school board, fucking near every statement of the school board has been shown to be student wide
I am pretty sure that if straight students were dancing in a inappropriate dancing they would be asked to leave too....
but let me guess, they are not LGBT so that means nothing,

equal rights and anti discrimination is something I know a lot about... cos they got it thru in my country, ...so I have a fucking good knowledge on how differcult it is to prove LGBT discrimination.....
the reason behind that is simple....
any person can claim LGBT discrimination, but first they have to prove that the actions or words by any person against them, is on a nature that would not be done to another person

so again, in the case of the school board
they had a no same sex ruling.... thats not anti LGBT, thats human rights

they stated that objections mean OUT... thats not anti LGBT, that would apply to any student

the school cancelled the prom cos of issues to problems that it could cause for students, ... thats not anti LGBT, it affected all the students....

once again, the only way you can cry anti LGBT, is when you ignore that every other student was bound by the same rules and conditions for the prom
but this is characteristic of people that want something to hate, they ignore the rest of the issue that pertains to the case, IE the other students

so tell me, do straight people get ejected from nightclubs and dances for inappropriate dancing, ?????

do straight people deal with conditions of entry to dances / proms etc

are straight people obligated to conform to a reasonable code of conduct at public / private functions

or do are only LGBT people subject to the rules... cos if they are, you have a case of discrimination... but if the rules are applied across the board to all people, its a case of human rights.....

I know the codes of conduct and entry to nightclubs.... I worked at the provincal tavern in napier ( mongrel mob bikie gang and back bar was the LGBT bar, as a barman and a doorman )

they were all treated as people first, and subject to the rules.... we had no issues... but I reckon that if the same place was in the US, the moment we ejected a LGBT person they would bitch and moan that it was cause they were LGBT, and not cos they was breaching the conditions of entry to the tavern

that is the difference between me and you, I actually understand that the LGBT are part of the human race, not a seperate branch of it

[Long Duck Dong]

Ducky, do you honestly believe that if a girl had written to the School Board requesting that she be able to take her cousin who was visiting from out of town, the Board would have denied this request?

I mean, ok if you do...there's no way to prove it one way or the other. Maybe I'm just being uncharitable toward that culture, but it seems like blind/naive optimism in that part of this country to believe that the School Board's refusal did not truly deal with the girl's sexuality, and that the rules *would* be applied unevenly to straight vs. LGBT students. I'm not making a case that would hold up in court...just an observation.

And although I tend to agree with the spirit of Jeannie's position, I must take issue with this notion:



Are you saying that if I choose not to exercise a right, then I don't *have* that right? Since I turned 21, I've supposedly had the right to drink alcohol. But I don't always want to drink alcohol (*looks at the skeptical audience* I said not *always*, ok??). Certainly, though, at those times I still have the *right* to drink alcohol! If *anyone* had the right to take a same-sex partner to that prom, certainly heterosexual people would have had that same right every bit as much as queer people...it's just a right they (in most cases) would have chosen not to exercise.


I believe that if the request did not fall within the guidelines of the school boards prom guidelines, that yes they would deny the request....

now the lesbian female in my eyes, did the right thing by talking to the school board... that was a brilliant move on her behalf, she sought to clarify any issues there may be....

what I am seeing as the school boards reaction, is that they laid out the criteria for the attendance, but badly mishandled it and the wording as to the no same sex partners.... but not at any point, did they mention sexuality or sexual preference as a issue.... the female student did that then stated that it was the school that ruled against her cos of it

if the school wanted to stop her attending the prom, why did they lay out the terms of entry.... I am refering to the part of the removal from the prom if there was complaints about dancing..
I notice that the female has not stated what aspects of the dancing would be regarded as objectional and that the school has not indicated what aspects of dancing would be unacceptable
however I know that at most school proms, they would remove students for inappropriate dancing, so I do question why if the same ruling is applied to a lesbian female, its immediately taken to mean that if they dance together, any body can object and they would be removed....

that again leads me to believe that the school was laying down the rules no different to any other school dealing with any student of any sexuality.... but it was either not clarified by the school or the lesbian student has once again, changed her statement of events and I say that as I have seen 3 different statements by her...

[Long Duck Dong]

constance is a 12th grader. her girlfriend is a 10th grader. both are students at IAHS. the school's memo states...

"The fee for a Junior or Senior is $35; a guest ticket for $10 (see guest criteria below)."

now you look below to the guest criteria and it states...

"may be in grade 9 or 10 at IAHS"

constance's girlfriend would thus be considered a guest.

at no time did either of the girl's try to get her ticket cheaper and i am sure they know they could not get away with such a thing since the school would know the two girls are students there and what grades they are in.

also... it seems here you are implying that the school board cancelled the prom for everyone because two girls tried to get cheaper tickets. something the two girls never tried to do.



it does discriminate, whether by accident or design, against GLBT people.

*

i have noticed that you appear to be trying to explain away discrimination against GLBT people in this case while attempting to appear to not be doing so. i do hope that is not the case.

unless the ruling was created specially to target any person of a LGBT and not applied equally to every student... then its human rights.... not LGBT discrimination

as for the reason for the school cancelling the prom, I actually believe that the cost of a court case and the media attention on the school would disrupt lessons and education for all students....

I view discrimination on two levels.... was the student subject to the same rules as every other student and were all students subject to the same rules at the female..... if the answer is yes, its not discrimination on the grounds of sexuality

that is the issue with discrimination, its a catch phrase... we are quick to yell it out... but quicker to ignore any part of the issue that could equally affect a non LGBT person....

for example, if I was to hit two people, one a hetero and one a gay man... immediately it would be called a gay bashing, but the attack on the hetero man would be called assault....
the sexuality would be added to the mix but may play no part in the reason for the punching.... but it is a action against a gay man and would be seen different to the same action against a straight man.....

without any proof that I hit the gay man cos of their sexuality, it would be assault, but it would be claimed that it was a anti gay crime by people with no proof that it was a anti gay offense other than the fact i punched them...
so you add conjecture based around the sexuality... and suddenly you get a anti gay crime and a assault on a straight male....
but the LGBT community would wanna lynch me for my gay hate actions...

but wait... it was just a punch... and now its become gay hate crime..
all cos of the sexuality of a person I hit

[Annika L]

i'm sure people (most of them anyway) understand what i mean by my statement and i won't try to explain it to you so you can understand it because that's how the last conflict between you and i got started.

Then I'll just defer to your obviously superior intellect and debate skills.

[darkeyes]

Then I'll just defer to your obviously superior intellect and debate skills.

Seems 2 me that ur readin an mine r 1 an the same Annika.. not 2 sure she meant quite wot she actually sed..:)

[*jeannie*]

Long Duck Dong, you like to make excessively long posts and multiple long posts to try to overwhelm people with all the material they would have to reply to. it is a tactic meant to drive people you dislike (due to their disagreement with you on the matter being discussed) out of the discussion. i'm sure that's because you have no leg to stand on and mistakenly believe it is a way for you to "win".

such a tactic is not discussion at all, so when you can come up with something that could actually be considered discussion, let me know. otherwise, anytime you utilize that tactic, i will simply ignore your posts.

[rissababynta]

Long Duck Dong, you like to make excessively long posts and multiple long posts to try to overwhelm people with all the material they would have to reply to. it is a tactic meant to drive people you dislike (due to their disagreement with you on the matter being discussed) out of the discussion. i'm sure that's because you have no leg to stand on and mistakenly believe it is a way for you to "win".

such a tactic is not discussion at all, so when you can come up with something that could actually be considered discussion, let me know. otherwise, anytime you utilize that tactic, i will simply ignore your posts.

actually, he has admitted to having a problem with being a bit...long winded...before...I think that is just how he is.

[darkeyes]

actually, he has admitted to having a problem with being a bit...long winded...before...I think that is just how he is.

'e is..but for all fact me hardly ev agrees wiv 'im.. 'e is luffly... do luff rufflin 'is feathas.. tee hee:tong:

[rissababynta]

'e is..but for all fact me hardly ev agrees wiv 'im.. 'e is luffly... do luff rufflin 'is feathas.. tee hee:tong:

LOL. You can ruffle my feathers whenever you'd like Dear.

[darkeyes]

LOL. You can ruffle my feathers whenever you'd like Dear.

:eek::rolleyes::):tong::bigrin:

[MarieDelta]

From the same Folks as brought you this debacle , they have also forced a trans girl out of their school.

http://www.itawamba360.com/view/full_story/5785285/article-UPDATE--Male-high-schooler-sent-home-after-dressing-as-girl



“They told me I was too feminine and they were mainly pointing out my heels,” Baize said. “I honestly don’t have boy clothes. I don’t have the money to buy boy clothes. I’m not going to because like everyone else, I’m there to get an education, and everyone else gets to dress like they want to."

So yeah, Move out soon people...

Oh and BTW, Constance will be on Ellen, Friday

[Long Duck Dong]

Long Duck Dong, you like to make excessively long posts and multiple long posts to try to overwhelm people with all the material they would have to reply to. it is a tactic meant to drive people you dislike (due to their disagreement with you on the matter being discussed) out of the discussion. i'm sure that's because you have no leg to stand on and mistakenly believe it is a way for you to "win".

such a tactic is not discussion at all, so when you can come up with something that could actually be considered discussion, let me know. otherwise, anytime you utilize that tactic, i will simply ignore your posts.


people disagree on many issues, that is no grounds for disliking anybody....
but yes I am long winded... I like to try and show that I am looking at a issue from multiple points of view, showing that I do not have all the facts and info, and working to understanding everybody elses point of view regardless of the fact of if I agree or disagree with their opinions

I can not win anything... and nor do I intend to.... I am offering differing points of view and opinions, the issue that needs to be win or lost, is the court case over the prom.... why you think I am trying to win the unwinable, is beyond me....

personally, I just think its a case of I keep asking for proof of facts and statements that most other people can not provide, yet they are telling me that I am wrong for not accepting what they can not prove... and that is clear cut evidence that the school board is being discriminating against LGBT while I can provide proof that the school board were acting in a badly managed way with their rulings, but it affected all the students

[Long Duck Dong]

From the same Folks as brought you this debacle , they have also forced a trans girl out of their school.

http://www.itawamba360.com/view/full_story/5785285/article-UPDATE--Male-high-schooler-sent-home-after-dressing-as-girl




So yeah, Move out soon people...

Oh and BTW, Constance will be on Ellen, Friday

they asked the person to conform to a dress code... you do not need to wear make up and heels to get a education.... and wearing make up and heels does not make you a trans.... you are a trans on the inside, you dress to match that on the outside, if you do not dress like a trans person, it doesn't make you any less of a trans person

in this case the person chose to wear make up and heels when there was not a need to..... and claim that the school board was unfair and its discrimination....

[MarieDelta]

they asked the person to conform to a dress code... you do not need to wear make up and heels to get a education.... and wearing make up and heels does not make you a trans.... you are a trans on the inside, you dress to match that on the outside, if you do not dress like a trans person, it doesn't make you any less of a trans person

in this case the person chose to wear make up and heels when there was not a need to..... and claim that the school board was unfair and its discrimination....


Clothes don't make her trans. However if she doesn't have male / neutral clothes then...

In addition, why shouldn't she be able to be herself at school as long as she isn't wearing anything any other girl isn't?

[TwylaTwobits]

Per the article I read it was a crossdressing issue not a trans issue.

[MarieDelta]

trans is crossdressing. Cross dressers are transgendered as well. (http://www.illawarraqinfo.com/USERIMAGES/transgenderumbrella.gif)

However - the fact that she doesn't have any male clothes tells me that the odds are good she is a transsexual.

Not many cross dressers of any age own full sets of female clothing without male clothes.

[MarieDelta]

More Info here -

http://www.wtva.com/mostpopular/story/School-Dress-Debate/ykCINbiIaUC-t4jOCXDpng.cspx

[Long Duck Dong]

ok, once again it doesn't say trans, the person could be a male with a female clothing fetish for all we know

that aside and I am not arguing if they are a person with a cross dressing fetish or a trans as I simply do not know....and nobody else does, they are assuming..

now the issue for the school is this.... in order to accommodate the lesbian and the person dressing in females clothing and still be fair...they need to change the school rules for EVERYBODY... that brings it into equal rights for all without discrimination

now I believe that the school has a policy that doesn't include a set uniform... and I base that around info i have read about the school and the students ( btw, i noticed that the lesbian female wears pants to school anyway, so the stance of wearing boys clothing to school was a move that was bloody pointless as the school allowed for it anyway, refer to the articles about the lesbian female school prom issue )

now the interesting aspect is that the clothes that a female wears such as pants and trousers are classed as unisex clothing in the fashion industry, not males clothing, as males and females can wear them and not appear different ) so that again makes the stance by the lesbian female and her friends, pointless....


now Juin Baize says that everybody else wears the clothes, why can't I .... so i ask, do all the boys at the school wear females clothing, or just some of the females....

if the person is transgender, their rights as a trans have not been trampled on, their right to wear what they want as a possible trans person has been denied by the school board, and once again, in order to remedy the issue, the school would need to change the school dress code for every student equally, or all they would be doing is adjusting the rules to suit ONE person, and excluding the rest of the students.... and that is a breach of equal rights...

but what would I know, I only go by proof and facts, not assumptions

[transcendMental]

they asked the person to conform to a dress code... you do not need to wear make up and heels to get a education.... and wearing make up and heels does not make you a trans.... you are a trans on the inside, you dress to match that on the outside, if you do not dress like a trans person, it doesn't make you any less of a trans person

in this case the person chose to wear make up and heels when there was not a need to..... and claim that the school board was unfair and its discrimination....

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Mr. Dong. If the person is transsexual, then she doesn't want to "dress like a trans person"! She wants to dress like the woman she is!

The dress code of that school does not prohibit any girl from wearing heels or makeup. In fact, it does not prohibit any boy from doing the same. In fact, it doesn't even prohibit a girl from wearing a tux.

I know you are fond of proof, so here is a link to the court document that contains the charges in the McMillen case and also contains the school's dress code (as Exhibit C):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28221069/McMillen-vs-Itawamba-County-School

If this person is a transsexual, then she identifies as a girl, and should have every right to dress the same as any other girl in the school. To deprive her of that right makes it more difficult for her to concentrate and receive an education, since she is clearly comfortable only in such dress (as evidenced by the fact that she only owns girl's clothes). To deprive her of that right also creates a hostile environment for her (and all transpersons at the school), which also acts against her ability to concentrate and receive an education.

Twyla raises the question of whether this person identifies as a girl or is a cross-dresser. But there is nothing in the school's dress code that prohibits a boy from wearing heels or makeup either. So it doesn't matter whether he/she is male or female inside or out.

If he/she was doing this to make a stink or cause trouble, that would be one thing (and article 11 of the dress code would be violated in that case). But if this person only owns girl's clothing, then clearly, he/she is not dressing this way in order to cause trouble. If the school's concern is that such dress might cause trouble anyway (unintended by the student), then that assumption is transphobic, and acting on that assumption creates a hostile environment for transpeople. The school could instead have seized an educational moment and given the students information on transgender conditions and why a biological male might want or need to dress as a woman.

Last, calling a transsexual "a trans" is like calling a homosexual "a homo". Are you "a bi"? Or are you bisexual?

[MarieDelta]

I have seen young women run away that have similar issues.

That is where a lot of transgendered sex workers originate. Its also why there is such a high rate of transfer for HIV amongst TG sex workers and their clients.(Needles that carry(black/gray market) hormones are shared)(See Transparent: Love, Family, and Living the T with Transgender Teenagers (Hardcover) - Cris Beam (http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Family-Living-Transgender-Teenagers/dp/0151011966))

But what do I know, eh? I've only lived being trans my whole life.

Of course you are right , let her do what she is gonna do.

Does it matter whether its discrimination? Nobody has filed suit. It is a pity that they aren't more accepting , however.

I highly doubt she is a fetishist, she dresses far too well for that. As far as I can see no skin was revealed that should have stayed hidden. I daresay she looked great.

[Long Duck Dong]

yes I am fond of proof, and if you read the thread you will see that I have already posted the link to the court papers.... so yes, I am already aware of a lot of things....

now the clothing guidelines are in the school handbook but the link is not working ( i used the link in the court papers ) so feel free to post your source for the school dress code, and I am not disputing what it says about dress code, I am curious what it doesn't say.... IE what is not allowed at school...

and once again, were is the proof the person is trans, both articles do not say they are trans, only you and marie do.... so again, I would like proof of the persons state of mind, not assumptions

as for me, I am actually pansexual, I ID as bi as its easier to explain to people, I am also intersex, I carry female genes of a nature that created subtle changes in my bodies structure and I have been found to have dual female and male psychological and emotional traits, I also wear clothing that is unisex / female and that all can ID me as a transgender also under maries trans umbrella....
that does not make me a trans person, the ruling on what is transgender, covers me under that umbrella..

I do not claim any rights under the transgender rights aspect, but I will happy claim ANY and ALL rights afforded EQUALLY to every person of the human race.....

[Long Duck Dong]

I have seen young women run away that have similar issues.

That is where a lot of transgendered sex workers originate. Its also why there is such a high rate of transfer for HIV amongst TG sex workers and their clients.(Needles that carry(black/gray market) hormones are shared)(See Transparent: Love, Family, and Living the T with Transgender Teenagers (Hardcover) - Cris Beam (http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Family-Living-Transgender-Teenagers/dp/0151011966))

But what do I know, eh? I've only lived being trans my whole life.

Of course you are right , let her do what she is gonna do.

Does it matter whether its discrimination? Nobody has filed suit. It is a pity that they aren't more accepting , however.

I highly doubt she is a fetishist, she dresses far too well for that. As far as I can see no skin was revealed that should have stayed hidden. I daresay she looked great.

like I said, I would like to see the person state they are trans.... that tells me what they see themselves as, not what we see them as, that is why I have not labelled them...

that aside, yes I agree, they can pass as a female very well, as they are not a feminine looking male, but a person that is female in looks using makeup to enhance their natural looks.. and I dare say, that if they are indeed transgender and looking to transition, that they would become a female that would have no difficulty in being seen as a female and not as a transitioned trans gender...

[transcendMental]

yes I am fond of proof, and if you read the thread you will see that I have already posted the link to the court papers.... so yes, I am already aware of a lot of things....

now the clothing guidelines are in the school handbook but the link is not working ( i used the link in the court papers ) so feel free to post your source for the school dress code, and I am not disputing what it says about dress code, I am curious what it doesn't say.... IE what is not allowed at school...

and once again, were is the proof the person is trans, both articles do not say they are trans, only you and marie do.... so again, I would like proof of the persons state of mind, not assumptions

as for me, I am actually pansexual, I ID as bi as its easier to explain to people, I am also intersex, I carry female genes of a nature that created subtle changes in my bodies structure and I have been found to have dual female and male psychological and emotional traits, I also wear clothing that is unisex / female and that all can ID me as a transgender also under maries trans umbrella....
that does not make me a trans person, the ruling on what is transgender, covers me under that umbrella..

I do not claim any rights under the transgender rights aspect, but I will happy claim ANY and ALL rights afforded EQUALLY to every person of the human race.....

You posted the link, but didn't read what was there? I said it contains the dress code as Exhibit C. That's my source. And it says exactly what is prohibited. And heels and makeup are not mentioned. Nor is cross-dressing of any kind.

I never said the person was transsexual. I talked about what would be the case if they were, and what would be the case if they were not. And in neither case did they violate the dress code. In fact, I explicitly said that it did not matter whether they identify as male or female. So don't accuse me of assumptions.

Try reading my post again, and the dress code, and responding with agreement or an argument.

And are you "a pan" or are you pansexual?

[Long Duck Dong]

You posted the link, but didn't read what was there? I said it contains the dress code as Exhibit C. That's my source. And it says exactly what is prohibited. And heels and makeup are not mentioned. Nor is cross-dressing of any kind.

I never said the person was transsexual. I talked about what would be the case if they were, and what would be the case if they were not. And in neither case did they violate the dress code. In fact, I explicitly said that it did not matter whether they identify as male or female. So don't accuse me of assumptions.

Try reading my post again, and the dress code, and responding with agreement or an argument.

And are you "a pan" or are you pansexual?

I posted the court papers link due to a difference in statements in the lesbians court case.....

now in your case, you posted the court case links too, but the rules quoted to the male student in regards to the clothing were from the school handbook as stated by the school official and the link in the court papers to the school handbook, is not working....
now I asked for your source of info as the link in the court papers to the school handbook was not working...and you refer me to court papers ???
is there a problem that I am not aware of.......

I agree, you said if the person is trans... I agree... but under marie's umbrella diagram, they would be classed as trans ( and incidentally under that diagram, the trans community would become the majority group in the world, and screw up their minority claim )
what I was seeking, is clarification from the person themselves as to their label for themselves, not our labels for them.....

pansexual..... I am not able to develop differing emotional reactions to people based on gender or sexuality... mmmmm this is a lil hard to explain so I will try to narrow it down...
I have dysthimia which is a low level depression state, because of it and other issues, I am not able to develop the full range of emotions that a * normal * person can *...
I can be with a female, male, trans ( transitioned and non transitioned ) intersex, crossdresser all of them lgbt or non lgbt and I would develop the same feelings about all of them equally and as if they were all the same person.... the average person can develop a emotional attachment on differing levels based around sexuality and gender

that combined with my mental state of mind, means that I do not see the school system against a lesbian and cross dressing male, I see a issue with miscommunication and rules that need clarifying and correcting and better communication between the students and the school board
others may see a lesbian and a crossdressing student being discriminated by a school board and not the rest of the students at the school, as they feel closer to the lesbian and the cross dressing students, than the complete student body....

[MarieDelta]

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z84/mariesophia66/Dresscode1.jpg
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z84/mariesophia66/Dresscode2.jpg
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z84/mariesophia66/dresscode3.jpg

So there is the dress code for ya

I suppose if I were a teenage boy and saw this person in the halls I would be disturbed, but probably no more so than if I saw any other attractive femme.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok thank you marie.....

now if I look at the rules then yes they are applying rule 11....

the grounds most likely would be that high heels can pose a health and safety issue leading to ankle and heel injuries.
that is not discrimination that is a health and safety issue and in the best interests of the well being of the student....

now the issue of rising a disturbance and interfering with the instructional program..... why can the person not wear pants, that is not a infringement of their rights as a trans person as females can wear pants too, as indicated by the schools current standing, so that would rise the issue that the person chooses to wear skirts and dresses as part of their identity....

that would become a issue of personal choice, and not something the school board is at fault for....

the rules of the school board are some of the least oppressive I have seen, and considering that people are slamming the school board as oppressive, conservative christian etc, the rules are very loose, enforcing good dress sense but allowing for personal expression on a wide scale.... there are schools in NZ that do not allow for females to wear pants and we are big on equal rights.....

so once again, its a case of the person wants the rights to self expression and its not trans discrimination, but a request to dress more suitably at school....
its being called trans discrimination cos the person wants to wear a dress / skirt but we see trans males dressed as females that wear pants and the issue of trans discrimination doesn't generally arise there.....

the school has the advantage in this case as their rules are not discriminating against people of LGBT nature, they are equal for all students but there are students that want the rules changed to suit their personal self expression.... something that the school can not do without making the rules more strict and oppressive and that would again hurt the other students unfairly

[MarieDelta]

she was wearing pants... Jeans with tight legs, it was in the clip.

I disagree, I see nothing but trouble for this young person in this county.

But I hope not.

I think these folks(the school board) are mighty intolerant.

If any student can wear heels then Juin should be able to as well, otherwise it is discrimination. Nothing in the dress code says she is not allowed to wear heels.

The rules aren't being applied in a fair and reasonable manner , however. And as far as her being able to wear makeup, what safety hazard does that represent?

[Long Duck Dong]

she was wearing pants... Jeans with tight legs, it was in the clip.

I disagree, I see nothing but trouble for this young person in this county.

But I hope not.

I think these folks(the school board) are mighty intolerant.

If any student can wear heels then Juin should be able to as well, otherwise it is discrimination. Nothing in the dress code says she is not allowed to wear heels.

The rules aren't being applied in a fair and reasonable manner , however. And as far as her being able to wear makeup, what safety hazard does that represent?

research the damage and injuries caused by high heels... the school has a legit concern and the interests of the students at heart, per their rules....

now the makeup, give me one good reason as to why they should be allowed to wear makeup.... and if so, should the same right be applied to goths at school.....

rule 6 refers to offensive or indecent clothing, now that is a ruling that is down to personal interpretation, and the person viewing the pants on the person, may have ruled them to be improper, that being the case, the school has acted in accordance with their rules.... so again its not discrimination unless you want to say that they were discriminated against for wearing tight pants cos they are trans ( assumed to be trans )

once again, we are refering to a male that has not being confirmed a trans person in a state of transition, but I do notice that you are refering to them as a she.... is that to support your opinion or just cos you are labeling them a trans in transition..... I ask that cos as I have stated, I have no idea what they label themselves as and therefore to assume, would be wrong and incorrect

now in order for you to prove discrimination, you would need the following

to prove that there is no risk to the student by wearing high heels, but medical evidence can prove you wrong on that
to prove that the school did not have the students interests at heart but under the rules, they can say they did
to prove that the school has not ruled against other students wearing make up, but that they ruled against this student on those grounds
to prove a history of discrimination on the grounds of gender over a time frame... but the student is new to the school and the matter was only just dealt with....
that the person is indeed trans gender and adversely affected by the schools ruling as a transgender student.... and again, currently we can only assume the nature of the person... so you can use your umbrella term but to do so, would place a lot more students under the umbrella and remove the discrimination on the grounds of gender identity as other students have followed the rules without issue and still gained a good education ( by that I refer to the lesbian female that wears pants and wants to wear a tux and may have a dominating personality psychologically and emotionally, thus fitting some of the criteria of the trans umbrella )

[crazy_cat_lady]

wow are you really that fucking blind? you are really going to assume the school board in a small bible belt town were really doing the best for the school, and not just covering thier asses and being discrimitory against this girl.

And btw how much harm would they really cause going to the prom the way they planned too? why the fuck would the girl ask the school first if she wanted to cause harm? Yeah and why dont they just rob a bank but call the damn police first before doing it....

If the kids were really as understanding as you say they are why the fuck would it have mattered?

Wow, they must have had it a lot easier were you live dong, for you to be as....understanding to the poor ole school board. you must be the most stupidly positive optimistic LGBT equal rights activist I have ever heard of...

oh and by the way...I took that dancing quote DIRECTLY FROM YOUR POST!!!

So unless you fucked it up and construde it that way....shut the fuck up.

And again are you really that stupidly nieve to think that the students in a BIBLE.... BELT.... TOWN would not complain about even the most G rated dancing?! Are you fucking serious?!

Those girls could slow dance with only their fingertips touching eachothers shoulders and the damn kids would go to the shaperones and say they were uncomfortable and they'd get kicked out. Or they'd just out right lie.

This is america...obviously you've never been here because you dont understand how we react to things, especially those in the bible belt... It may not be that way were you are but it is that way here. again my:2cents:

[Long Duck Dong]

wow are you really that fucking blind? you are really going to assume the school board in a small bible belt town were really doing the best for the school, and not just covering thier asses and being discrimitory against this girl.

And btw how much harm would they really cause going to the prom the way they planned too? why the fuck would the girl ask the school first if she wanted to cause harm? Yeah and why dont they just rob a bank but call the damn police first before doing it....

If the kids were really as understanding as you say they are why the fuck would it have mattered?

Wow, they must have had it a lot easier were you live dong, for you to be as....understanding to the poor ole school board. you must be the most stupidly positive optimistic LGBT equal rights activist I have ever heard of...

oh and by the way...I took that dancing quote DIRECTLY FROM YOUR POST!!!

So unless you fucked it up and construde it that way....shut the fuck up.

And again are you really that stupidly nieve to think that the students in a BIBLE.... BELT.... TOWN would not complain about even the most G rated dancing?! Are you fucking serious?!

Those girls could slow dance with only their fingertips touching eachothers shoulders and the damn kids would go to the shaperones and say they were uncomfortable and they'd get kicked out. Or they'd just out right lie.

This is america...obviously you've never been here because you dont understand how we react to things, especially those in the bible belt... It may not be that way were you are but it is that way here. again my:2cents:

I see a school trying to protect themselves from people that want to see discrimination in every lil issue they can.......

now I am not a LGBT activist either... I am a equal rights believer.... the type that believes that you can not have equal rights, if you want person specific rights as they conflict with each other and remove the ability of society to function as a unit.....

you have your opinion and based around the nature of your post, you are as discriminating and judgmental as the school board you are attacking.....

now I actually support the lesbian student for her actions in working to resolve the issue with the school board... that was a very good move... it shows that she wants to resolve any issues that may arise....

and yes I know that there are people that will go off the deep end over the simplest lil things, IE you and your posts.... but its the way they react that makes the world of difference....

I am curious... if your issue that I am not judging people and slamming them into the ground cos I can, instead of taking a calm and careful approach, or the fact that clearly you can not deal with the issues that well yourself so you need a target to take your issues out on.....

at the end of the day, its reactions like yours to issues that the LGBT do not want to have if they want to get things sorted.... a calm, collected and strong, balanced approach works... swearing at people gets you nowhere

[Long Duck Dong]

right, would it be so hard to give the school the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are doing their best to work thru the issues in accordance with new laws regarding equal rights etc.....

they may be a bible belt town, but for crying out loud, even they can change... the teenagers at the school now, are the future of that town in a lot of ways, how we react to and treat them now, can change the future of that town for generations to come....

it is time that people stop the bashing the bible belt small town bs, and support the people that are working to change the bible belt town mentality cos they are the people that can change the towns and help bring them up to speed with the rest of society.....

it may be the elder generation that make the rules in that town, but its the younger generation that will replace them one day, and its mainly the younger generation that are resisting the old ways and moving with modern times.....

the lesbian and the crossdressing teenager are two examples of this.... people are screaming about the school board and their rules.... but in both cases, the school board rules are a dammed sight less oppressive and restrictive than I have seen in other countries, yet the way people are carrying on, I was half expecting to see the local preacher and the KKK standing outside the school with shotguns....

yes the rights of people are still restricted and yes change takes time.... but based around what I am reading and seeing, the reactions of people in this thread are more judgmental, oppressive and unyielding than the bloody schools policies...

the schools policies are about as undiscriminating as you can get.. the way they are applied may be discriminating.. but they are far less extreme than the way people are carrying on....
so I do say this, if you think the school is being discriminating with their rulings, how about you sit down and try writing the rules better in a way that is not discriminating against any students and see just how hard it is do do that without discriminating on some level

I say good on the school for trying to be as undiscriminating as possible in a small town.... and there are things like a straight A lesbian student that is not refering to abuse and intolerance in a small town, while I have read stories about other LGBT students in large towns that talk about emotional trauma pain and suffering due to hostile reactions to them and how their school work has suffered....

can anybody explain to me why I am not seeing that same stuff in a bible belt small town that is supposedly hell on earth for anybody that is the slightest bit different

[rissababynta]

wow are you really that fucking blind? you are really going to assume the school board in a small bible belt town were really doing the best for the school, and not just covering thier asses and being discrimitory against this girl.

And btw how much harm would they really cause going to the prom the way they planned too? why the fuck would the girl ask the school first if she wanted to cause harm? Yeah and why dont they just rob a bank but call the damn police first before doing it....

If the kids were really as understanding as you say they are why the fuck would it have mattered?

Wow, they must have had it a lot easier were you live dong, for you to be as....understanding to the poor ole school board. you must be the most stupidly positive optimistic LGBT equal rights activist I have ever heard of...

oh and by the way...I took that dancing quote DIRECTLY FROM YOUR POST!!!

So unless you fucked it up and construde it that way....shut the fuck up.

And again are you really that stupidly nieve to think that the students in a BIBLE.... BELT.... TOWN would not complain about even the most G rated dancing?! Are you fucking serious?!

Those girls could slow dance with only their fingertips touching eachothers shoulders and the damn kids would go to the shaperones and say they were uncomfortable and they'd get kicked out. Or they'd just out right lie.

This is america...obviously you've never been here because you dont understand how we react to things, especially those in the bible belt... It may not be that way were you are but it is that way here. again my:2cents:

LDD hasn't be mean in his posts, why do you feel the need to be? I don't understand that.

[darkeyes]

wow are you really that fucking blind? you are really going to assume the school board in a small bible belt town were really doing the best for the school, and not just covering thier asses and being discrimitory against this girl.

And btw how much harm would they really cause going to the prom the way they planned too? why the fuck would the girl ask the school first if she wanted to cause harm? Yeah and why dont they just rob a bank but call the damn police first before doing it....

If the kids were really as understanding as you say they are why the fuck would it have mattered?

Wow, they must have had it a lot easier were you live dong, for you to be as....understanding to the poor ole school board. you must be the most stupidly positive optimistic LGBT equal rights activist I have ever heard of...

oh and by the way...I took that dancing quote DIRECTLY FROM YOUR POST!!!

So unless you fucked it up and construde it that way....shut the fuck up.

And again are you really that stupidly nieve to think that the students in a BIBLE.... BELT.... TOWN would not complain about even the most G rated dancing?! Are you fucking serious?!

Those girls could slow dance with only their fingertips touching eachothers shoulders and the damn kids would go to the shaperones and say they were uncomfortable and they'd get kicked out. Or they'd just out right lie.

This is america...obviously you've never been here because you dont understand how we react to things, especially those in the bible belt... It may not be that way were you are but it is that way here. again my:2cents:

Chill.. no need 2 get so hot unda ya colla.. Duckie expresses views.. u don like 'em fine.. God.. me don eitha haff the time but for betta or worse 'e has the rite 2 say 'em..

.. sumtimes me dus wonda jus how tolerant peeps r a opposite viewpoints.. argue by all means.. don get offensive an don tell peeps 2 shut the fuck up.. dus wonda how many reelly believe in free speech.. :rolleyes:

[MarieDelta]

I sense some grasping at straws...

Again if any student is allowed to wear makeup, then all should be allowed.

If any student is allowed to wear heels, then the same right should apply.

There are no gender restrictions as far as dress, in the school code.

You don't have to prove that heels are or aren't a danger to prove discrimination, you just have to prove that someone else was allowed to wear similar heels.

I think this small town school board is flailing and failing.

No one said 'life was hell' in some small towns, however it sure can get uncomfortable, esp in more conservative areas. Which has led many LGBT to flee these places to more accepting urban areas, as I mentioned before.

I'm not sure why some folks feel they need to defend this particular institution.

It seems there is a pattern here.

[MarieDelta]

Its funny that this is an issue here, but not at this students former school...

If all this person owns is female clothing then one would think it would have come up before this point?

That other countries are more repressive is well known, that isn't the point here.

[FalconAngel]

Hey LDD,

It IS NOT the dress code that is the issue, as you have been trying to claim.

Here is the latest on the issue:

UPDATE: The hearing for McMillen's case is scheduled for Monday next week according to Advocate.com. The Advocate also relates that:

“In the court documents, McMillen said Rick Mitchell, the assistant principal at the school, told her she could not attend the prom with her girlfriend but they could go with ‘guys,’” reported the AP. “Superintendent Teresa McNeece told the teen that the girls should attend the prom separately, had to wear dresses and couldn't slow dance with each other because that could ‘push people's buttons,’ according to court documents.”

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/thank-you-from-constance-mcmillen/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/10/national/a155936S28.DTL

[*jeannie*]

but yes I am long winded...

long-windedness is a hindrance tho. it only makes a lot more material for people to have to read thru. please try to keep it more condensed.


I like to try and show that I am looking at a issue from multiple points of view, showing that I do not have all the facts and info, and working to understanding everybody elses point of view regardless of the fact of if I agree or disagree with their opinions

we know that. you state it so much in your long-winded posting. we also are loooking at it from every possible angle but we also know what the real reason is behind it. everyone in america (the school board included) knows the anti-discrimination laws here and they know some of their rules are in violation of those laws. thus, they HAVE violated those laws, not by accident, but by design. of course, lawbreakers try to lie their ways out of things they've done wrong. which is what the school board is doing. they are lying by claiming that it is not because constance and her girlfriend are lesbians.


I am offering differing points of view and opinions, the issue that needs to be win or lost, is the court case over the prom.... why you think I am trying to win the unwinable, is beyond me....

some view discussions as contests and try to "win" them. your long-windedness made it seem as if you was trying to overwhelm people with excessively long and multiple posts to drive them to giving up. i apologize for mistakening your intentions. please try to keep it more condensed in the future.


personally, I just think its a case of I keep asking for proof of facts and statements that most other people can not provide, yet they are telling me that I am wrong for not accepting what they can not prove...

you have not proven anything either. let's have your point-proving facts please.


and that is clear cut evidence that the school board is being discriminating against LGBT while I can provide proof that the school board were acting in a badly managed way with their rulings, but it affected all the students

badly managed way? violating a law is still violating a law whether it is done by accident or design. the school board knows the anti-discrimination laws here in america and has made some rules which violate those laws. they made those discriminatory rules on purpose and always believed they could lie their way out of it.

that's all a federal judge here in america needs to know. it is then completely within his/her power to rule in favor of constance based solely on that.

[*jeannie*]

sorry for the double posting here. *slaps self for doing so* you can slap me for doing so also LDD. :)

* * * * * * * *


now the issue for the school is this.... in order to accommodate the lesbian and the person dressing in females clothing and still be fair...they need to change the school rules for EVERYBODY... that brings it into equal rights for all without discrimination

since federal law supercedes school rules, the students can ignore any school rule which violates anti-discrimination laws as those school rules are automatically rendered null and void by virtue of the fact that they are not allowable under us law. if a student ignores discriminatory school rules the us government will back the students 100&#37;.

*


rule 6 refers to offensive or indecent clothing, now that is a ruling that is down to personal interpretation, and the person viewing the pants on the person, may have ruled them to be improper, that being the case, the school has acted in accordance with their rules.

now, using your own logic here...

rule 11 is also open to interpretation, and the person viewing the clothing on the other person. because a student who is open-minded and accepting of others would not find crossdressing to be disruptive to him/her but a close-minded, non-accepting student would.

that also goes for any rule which prevents same-sex relationships, prom dates, etc. they are open to interpretation using your own logic here.

*


I see a school trying to protect themselves from people that want to see discrimination in every lil issue they can.......

protect themselves? even a moron can create a rule which does not discriminate against anyone with but a small amount of mental effort.

*


right, would it be so hard to give the school the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are doing their best to work thru the issues in accordance with new laws regarding equal rights etc.....

no one is so stupid as to make a rule which so clearly discriminates while trying to not make a discriminatory rule.

[Long Duck Dong]

Hey LDD,

It IS NOT the dress code that is the issue, as you have been trying to claim.

Here is the latest on the issue:

UPDATE: The hearing for McMillen's case is scheduled for Monday next week according to Advocate.com. The Advocate also relates that:

“In the court documents, McMillen said Rick Mitchell, the assistant principal at the school, told her she could not attend the prom with her girlfriend but they could go with ‘guys,’” reported the AP. “Superintendent Teresa McNeece told the teen that the girls should attend the prom separately, had to wear dresses and couldn't slow dance with each other because that could ‘push people's buttons,’ according to court documents.”

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/thank-you-from-constance-mcmillen/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/10/national/a155936S28.DTL

falcon I am not trying to claim its the dress code, I am looking at all the issues

now you have posted a article, can you now post the court papers statements that say that, then post the statements by constance that have been posted in other sites and you will see a number of differences in statements that clearly conflict with each other..... including what the school told her


me and jeannie have both posted links to the court papers and we have both read them..... and marie has posted the dress code as well......
free feel to read the court papers and you will see what has been stated in them

[Long Duck Dong]

sorry for the double posting here. *slaps self for doing so* you can slap me for doing so also LDD. :)

* * * * * * * *



since federal law supercedes school rules, the students can ignore any school rule which violates anti-discrimination laws as those school rules are automatically rendered null and void by virtue of the fact that they are not allowable under us law. if a student ignores discriminatory school rules the us government will back the students 100%.

yes, if the law discriminates on unfair grounds that infringes on a students rights if they are within reason... otherwise, you could argue that its discrimination for a male not be to allowed to use the females toilets cos he likes to sit to pee and cos they are closer to him than the males toilets....

*




now, using your own logic here...

rule 11 is also open to interpretation, and the person viewing the clothing on the other person. because a student who is open-minded and accepting of others would not find crossdressing to be disruptive to him/her but a close-minded, non-accepting student would.

that also goes for any rule which prevents same-sex relationships, prom dates, etc. they are open to interpretation using your own logic here.

now that rule 11 is a loaded rule.... thats why i viewed it as the wearing of high heels can pose a risk to the students health and safety..... as covered under the rules....
the issue I see with rule 11 is that there is no discrimination in it.... but any action taken under that rule can be stated as discrimination.....
so if the school spoke against a female in high heels and make up, its not discrimination, but against a cross dressing male, it is.....
but when we say that its discrimination then we are saying that students should have the right to dress as they see fit..... and that is pushing the school to tighten up on the rules and that could adversely affect all students
for example, if they rule that its dresses for females, pants for males or even school uniform, most students lose their freedom of expression within the rules with the females wearing pants etc

with the same sex rule of the prom, again, the rule was a mistake by the school board, they can define it any way they want,.... but even I would have to be blind not to see the words * same sex * and admit openly, that it can be freely used against same sex couples, be their family, friends or lovers

*




protect themselves? even a moron can create a rule which does not discriminate against anyone with but a small amount of mental effort.

I agree, rule 11 does not discriminate against anybody, until its applied to a person... thats the issue with rules, no matter what rule is created, I can find a loophole that would either create a infringement status or unfair remove the rights of others, and a example of how the school could change things to remove the issues ....

*




no one is so stupid as to make a rule which so clearly discriminates while trying to not make a discriminatory rule.

the school board..... with the same sex rule..... just the wording was clearly stupid for a school that has a no discrimination policy...

but I know what they are doing with the no discrimination policy... its used here in NZ....
its a way of saying that the rules apply equally to every student regardless of race, religion, sexuality or gender identity.....
and it DOESN'T work....
at the local school here ( girls school ) the christians were told that they were not allowed to wear crosses even hidden under their clothing as they were symbols of faith that were offensive to followers of other faiths....
and the ruling of personal jewelry is not allowed to be worn, was used....
but the maori students were excluded from that rule, because their whale bone necklaces were not symbols of faith but cultural symbols....

its a technicality but shows how rules can be twisted and applied differently to people over the same thing, a necklace

[Long Duck Dong]

I sense some grasping at straws...

Again if any student is allowed to wear makeup, then all should be allowed.

If any student is allowed to wear heels, then the same right should apply.

There are no gender restrictions as far as dress, in the school code.

You don't have to prove that heels are or aren't a danger to prove discrimination, you just have to prove that someone else was allowed to wear similar heels.

I think this small town school board is flailing and failing.

No one said 'life was hell' in some small towns, however it sure can get uncomfortable, esp in more conservative areas. Which has led many LGBT to flee these places to more accepting urban areas, as I mentioned before.

I'm not sure why some folks feel they need to defend this particular institution.

It seems there is a pattern here.

that is the issue marie... the school is legally responsible for the health and well being of the students..... so if the male student injures themselves as school by wearing high heels, the school gets in the shit for not looking out for the safety and well being of the student, but if the student claims discrimination cos they are not allowed to wear high heels, then the school gets in the shit

I am not defending the school I am pointing out how no matter what the school does, they are in the shit.....

you may want to slam the school for things, but I am looking at the rules, the laws and the obligations of the school v's the rights of the students
that is why there is a difference of opinions.... most people are looking at the two students and their issues .... I am looking at the schools rulings and the two students and the student body overall and seeing the issues that are there

now yes the school is responsible for having non discrimination rules and guidelines under the US law.... however under US law, as jeannie has pointed out, federal law can supersede ANY school law, if it can be deemed a violation of the students rights....

so the issue is you have to work out what is the rights of the student and what is being violated and like I have said, I can rip apart any rule by any school that is a neutral rule and turn it into a rule that discriminates...and that places the school in the situation of do they relax the rules to the point that you can go to school as a male in a bikini... or tighten them up to the way they used to be 50 years ago...

I will give a example

the wearing of high heels, students have the right to wear them at school, a student claims discrimination, the school counters that its a health and safety issue, the student counters that its discrimination, so the school removes the right to wear high heels to school as a safety concern
the opposite is that more and more students wear more outlandish boots leading to more ankle and heel issues ( medically proven ) then blame the school for not stopping them doing it, as the school states in rule about safety and health

the wearing of unisex clothing, students have the right to wear unisex clothing to school, a student is asked to change their clothing, they argue discrimination as others wear unisex clothing, the school counters with a stricter clothing code or changes the school to a set uniform....
the opposite is that students start going to school in drag and it adversely affects the image of the school and disrupts schools and lessons for the other students...

the wearing of make up, students are allowed to wear makeup, a male student chooses to wear make up, the school asks them to remove it, the student counters with a claim of discrimination cos other students can wear make up, the school changes the rights to remove the wearing of make up totally
the opposite, people start wearing goth and clown make up cos they claim its their right

now you can say they are extremes, but the human race and teenagers specially, will challenge any rules and push the boundaries.... so you force the school to either adjust the rules to match each and every students rights.... force them to tighten up the rules and remove a lot of freedom on the behalf of the students and trigger a number of complains... or the students and school board can compromise and reach a agreement and that will not happen..... as the students believe that their rights come first....
personally I think a education comes first, you need that education to help you with the reason of your life

we wanted a world with equal rights for all, we are pushing for a world of personal rights for each other that differ depending on the person.....
can you at least see that aspect of what is happening....

in NZ you are NOT allowed to discipline your kids now, you may not view their school report under the privacy act etc etc, the kids have rights.....
but as a parent, you are legally responsible for your kids actions when they break the law ( and you will be blamed as a bad parent ) and you are legally responsible for your students attendance and education at the school

we have one of the fastest rising kid crime rates in the world now, as we have made the kids realise they have rights and that their parents can not infringe on their rights.....
learn from NZ about the dangers of removing reasonable boundaries under the guise of human rights.....
we have kids that are between 5-8 years old, convicted of sexual assault and rape, because their parents can not discipline them anymore for any reason.... its a infringement of their human rights

[Long Duck Dong]

just out of curiosity, is there any way that a wavier can be signed between the school and student

something like * I, the student release the school from any legal standing or responsibility, should I, the student choose to use or wear any clothing, or makeup, or conduct myself in any manner while at school or any school related event and activity, that may result in emotional, psychological, mental or psychical trauma, injury, abuse or any other perceived issue, as a result of my choosing to conduct myself in any manner or dress in any manner that I see fit, and that I release the school from any obligation or responsibility to ask that I conduct myself within the school rules

that way, the school can not be held responsible for any action or reaction to a students choice to do, say or wear what they want.... when the school has said no, and the student has stated its their right to do it anyway, under federal law

this is under the heading of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, IE if I was to walk high heels at school, slip and break my ankle and cause damage to the ligaments and tendons and nerves and bones, due to my decision to walk high heels, the school is released from any responsibility as they allowed me to do it, knowing the possible risks to my health and wellbeing

[MarieDelta]

just out of curiosity, is there any way that a wavier can be signed between the school and student

something like * I, the student release the school from any legal standing or responsibility, should I, the student choose to use or wear any clothing, or makeup, or conduct myself in any manner while at school or any school related event and activity, that may result in emotional, psychological, mental or psychical trauma, injury, abuse or any other perceived issue, as a result of my choosing to conduct myself in any manner or dress in any manner that I see fit, and that I release the school from any obligation or responsibility to ask that I conduct myself within the school rules

that way, the school can not be held responsible for any action or reaction to a students choice to do, say or wear what they want.... when the school has said no, and the student has stated its their right to do it anyway, under federal law

this is under the heading of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, IE if I was to walk high heels at school, slip and break my ankle and cause damage to the ligaments and tendons and nerves and bones, due to my decision to walk high heels, the school is released from any responsibility as they allowed me to do it, knowing the possible risks to my health and wellbeing

A waiver can be signed. But its legality would be extremely questionable. It probably wouldn't hold up in court.

But its usually not an issue. The school wouldn't be held as responsible, in most cases.

Although this little bit is interesting

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms


Other courts have applied a test developed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1968 decision on draft-card burning, U.S. v. O’Brien, to determine whether a school dress code is constitutional. Under the O’Brien test, a school dress code or uniform policy is constitutional if it:

1. Is authorized under state law.
2. Advances an important government interest.
3. Is not related to the suppression of free expression.
4. Only incidentally restricts free expression in a minimal fashion.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has used the O’Brien test more than once to uphold a school-uniform policy against constitutional challenge, as in Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board:

One could argue that this school boards application of their rules fails under items 3 and 4...

[Long Duck Dong]

yes it can be argued.....that it is a suppression of free expression
but it can be argued that it is to introduce a less conflictive school atmosphere so that the emphasis can be more focused on education as education of students is the primary role of a school....

I know that I went to school to learn and gain a education, I am getting more curious why other people go to school now.... cos its starting to appear like its to play dress up and held peaceful protests at school proms....
and yes I am being sarcastic.....

at the end of the day, I have no issues with students wanting to wear what they want or do what they was if its within reason.... but yes, I always thought that the reason to go to school was to gain a good education and that can lead to a good job....

marie, do you believe that your education would have been enhanced or reduced if you had gone to school in a school uniform or in high heels and make up.... or do you believe that your ability to learn is not influenced by the clothes you wear, but the way you paid attention at school
I ask that based around the statement you once made about being a engineer and I know that is not a degree and a job you can find in a pack of cornflakes, it can take some serious brain power to get jobs like that

[*jeannie*]

Long Duck Dong, you keep claiming that you are not supporting any discrimination the school and/or school board may have committed and that you are simply trying to look at the matter from all possible angles. however, you always come across as trying to explain away the school's discrimination against students.

[MarieDelta]

yes it can be argued.....that it is a suppression of free expression
but it can be argued that it is to introduce a less conflictive school atmosphere so that the emphasis can be more focused on education as education of students is the primary role of a school....

I know that I went to school to learn and gain a education, I am getting more curious why other people go to school now.... cos its starting to appear like its to play dress up and held peaceful protests at school proms....
and yes I am being sarcastic.....

at the end of the day, I have no issues with students wanting to wear what they want or do what they was if its within reason.... but yes, I always thought that the reason to go to school was to gain a good education and that can lead to a good job....

marie, do you believe that your education would have been enhanced or reduced if you had gone to school in a school uniform or in high heels and make up.... or do you believe that your ability to learn is not influenced by the clothes you wear, but the way you paid attention at school
I ask that based around the statement you once made about being a engineer and I know that is not a degree and a job you can find in a pack of cornflakes, it can take some serious brain power to get jobs like that

I didn't do very well in HS, at all. In part because I believed that if I was found to be trans, I would be run out of town on a rail. Even though at that time I couldn't even have told you what being transsexual meant. All I knew was that I felt like something was wrong with me. Yes, that did distract me from virtually everything I did. It was always there in the back of my head. Like a constant feeling that you left something on when you left the house.

Where I grew up, men were men, and sheep were nervous. I dont even think there were any out gay or lesbians in town. Ever seen "Brokeback Mountain"? that could have been the town I grew up in.

I dont know if that was the clothes I wore, however. I've never had the chance to be myself in a school situation.

School has always been a struggle for me, and that hasn't always been because of the trans stuff, although I wouldn't say its helped any.

[Long Duck Dong]

marie, I can relate, I failed HS massively, I never finished school and left when I was 14... but my issue was one of a mental illness, I was struggling to relate to people and issues and it was only when I was 37 that it was finally diagnosised....

at my school, there was not discrimination but nor was there LGBT visible students, but there was wide spread bullying and currently in NZ schools its got epidemic...and as a result of that and a number of other issues, they have had to dumb down the national school certs in order to rise the average passing level of kids in schools

my question to you was on the basis that in my generation, ( the 35-45 year olds ) you really needed to have brains to pass the school certs, and in todays generation I am seeing kids having all the rights they can... IE calculators in class etc etc, and LGBT support groups etc etc.... and a massive failure rate in schools...

what i blame and I may be incorrect, is currently today in nz, we are putting too much emphasis on kids rights and the rights of expression etc etc... and seeing the results of that.... the focus is not on wear proper clothes and buck up ya ideas at school and get a good education.... but lets address your rights and blame the school system for failing you and your parents for not forcing you to go to school, and the teachers for not having control in the classroom, tho they are not allowed to discipline kids at school now...
and the kids are constantly saying * my rights *

now in the case of the lesbian student we are not seeing that, we are seeing a straight A level student with a good future, with a issue of a school related prom and the rights to take her same sex partner....
and the school is getting slammed over that issue....
but I come back to the straight A level student aspect..... she worked within the school guidelines, got brilliant grades and is doing very well in a school that discriminates....

so I ask why is it unreasonable to ask other students ( the cross dressing student ) to do the same compromise, surely putting aside their desire to dress in the clothes they do, would be in the interests of the student in light of a better education and future....
yes I know it can be a infringement of their rights to freedom of expression.... but is wearing females clothing more important than a good education

if I may use you as a example, marie, you are a engineer, a job that requires a high degree of intelligence, and you are trans as well....
that in a sense tells me that the clothes you wore at school may have not impeded your ability to become a engineer, but if you were a teenager today, the disruption and issues at school over clothing wearing and rights, may have impeded your ability to become a engineer....

I am, not advocating infringements of rights in schools in the ways of dress code and partners, I am suggesting that maybe the rights of dress code are suspended while at school so that there is minimum disruption and a increased option of higher learning for all students
this would not be a excessive infringements of rights, but merely the chance for all students to gain a better education at school and brighter job prospects....

I would use the schools current policy of tidy dress but allow unisex clothing IE pants for males and females to compromise with the trans students

[Long Duck Dong]

Long Duck Dong, you keep claiming that you are not supporting any discrimination the school and/or school board may have committed and that you are simply trying to look at the matter from all possible angles. however, you always come across as trying to explain away the school's discrimination against students.

agreed I am not supporting the discrimination.... but nor am I labeling it discrimination as I do not have the proof that it is discrimination, what I have is a number of differing statements by a lesbian female about what the school board said and did... and a cross dressing student asked to leave school and change, but with no details about what they were doing wrong... and a number of posters that are screaming discrimination, yet unable to provide me with proof backing their statements, but telling me I am wrong when I question the lack of proof for the statements about the school board

I have noticed that a lot of aspects were labelled discrimination earlier in the thread, I asked for proof of issues.... I have seen a school board constantly acting in the best interests of all the students, albeit wrongly in some respects
but the level of judgment in this thread against the school is far beyond any level of discrimination and judgment the school has made, and I have noticed constant ignorance in regards to the students that go to that school to get a education and a prom....

now I support the school in trying to provide a balanced and fair education system for all, I support the lesbian student in her request to be treated no different than the other students at the prom, I support the cross dressing students right to dress in unisex clothing within reason and I support all the students at the school with their right to have a good education and prom without disruption and issues....

I believe the school mishandled the prom request, the wording in the prom rules, the enforcement of some rules....

BUT I believe that inside school hours, during class time that the school has every right to act to stop, remove or suspend ANY action that can impede, prevent or halt ANY class room lessons, if it infringes on a students ability to learn a good education and I am referring to the majority student aspect there

I support schools as centers of learning.. that is their role in society, not babysitting clubs, not human rights convention centers, not fashion shows etc.....
centers of learning and education,

now if students want to dress how the hell they want, so be it, but if it is excessive, unneeded and a hinderance to the advancement of learning for the majority of students, then hell yes, I will support infringement of rights and discrimination
when you are forcing a education system to focus more on appeasing students own personal issues and standings, its taking the focus off learning

what is the point in fighting the school system to gain the rights of freedom of expression, dress and conduct, if you leave school without any school certs and you work in a minimum wage job, when with a lil bit of sucking it up, you could leave school with a better education, and the chances of a better job and the ability to better support your lifestyle

students go to school to get a education, not to have to do with other students issues of dress, partner choice, makeup, fights with the school board etc etc

[MarieDelta]

I wouldnt go so far as that. There have been people such as this who have quit school & left home to be themselves. Now it would seem from the facts of this case that Juin at least has his parents support in this.

So, in my not so humble opinion, I would guess that this person needs this to feel comfortable and is not doing this to create a disturbance. I base that on the the fact that Juin has a no male clothing. Also that Juin has no fear of being seen / vidotaped dressed in women's clothing.

If the issue is simply the heels then it can be resolved. If its something else I doubt it will be resolved.

I dont know what you guys are doing over there , but it would seem many western countries are having similar issues. Is it the free expression or is it something else? Many things have changed since you and I were in school, and not all of them for the better.

[FalconAngel]

falcon I am not trying to claim its the dress code, I am looking at all the issues

Actually, you spent a greater deal of time defending the school board under the auspices of defending the dress code, than you have in any real attempt to defend her civil rights or addressing the board's decision to violate those rights.


now you have posted a article, can you now post the court papers statements that say that, then post the statements by constance that have been posted in other sites and you will see a number of differences in statements that clearly conflict with each other..... including what the school told her

If you had gone to the links provided, at least one of them has links to the papers filed. They are public record after all.


me and jeannie have both posted links to the court papers and we have both read them..... and marie has posted the dress code as well......
free feel to read the court papers and you will see what has been stated in them

As I understand it, the dress code, if applicable in this situation, could have been worked around by the girl, but the issue is that the school did not want the two girls to go as a couple; did not want them expressing their affection for each other at the dance; and did not want then slow dancing together.

Other students are allowed to do so but because it is two girls, the school board has decided not to allow them to do so.

The majority suppressing the minority to protect some imagined sensitivity of other unnamed individuals who are not identified and neither demonstrated to be majority or minority.

So they will violate the civil rights and abridge the protections of a minority to protect the FEELINGS of others? That is the cruelest form of discrimination. Something which you have spent this entire thread protecting.

And people wonder why I consider political correctness to be the venue of morons.

All people have the right to be equally protected.
That does not mean that they have the right to deny others their rights in order to avoid being offended.

Get used to that. We call it the real world.

[Long Duck Dong]

marie

what we are doing wrong in NZ, is childrens rights.... we are big on anti spanking, so we have removed caning and straps from schools ( I have no issues with that ), but also removed a parents ability to spank their children...

as it stands in NZ currently, we have the greens party working hard to remove all forms of child abuse, and its got out of hand ( cross country runs, playing tag and bull rush, some contact sports, climbing apparatus are all classed as degrees of child abuse )

we do have a escalating level of violence against teachers as the students are told that the school has no right to deny them a education, and that means that if a person acts in a manner to harm a teacher, the school is not allowed to expel them without providing another school for the child to attend.....

hopefully america will not have that happening over there

where we differ to the USA, is most of our schools are set dress code / uniform ruled, and in most schools, LGBT support groups are not allowed as they are viewed as creating a separate grouping within the school system and creating targets for bullying....
while there are LGBT students in schools, they are encouraged to keep quiet at school to avoid bullying and other issues, in the interests of a better education

in nz, the lesbian would be allowed to attend the prom with her partner and dance equally with the other students, and the crossdressing student would have been suspended and sent for counseling and possible family / school mediation

I am not sure how I feel about that, I can understand the sense behind it, but I also understand its like the DADT policy of the us military...
the schools have a unspoken policy of do not reveal yourself to be different cos you will become a target that we can not protect due to NZ law...

our anti discrimination laws are effective and working, and we do have equal rights for all..... and we do have a low anti lgbt violence rate.... but we do also lack a lot of LGBT support / counselling / nightclub / sauna outlets

as for the treatment and support of LGBT teens, nz is fucking ratshit .... there are 2 nz lgbt websites that offer help ( and personals ) and 3 phone help lines...
the support networks and counselling and support in the usa is far superior to nz's bs lgbt teen support....

[Long Duck Dong]

Actually, you spent a greater deal of time defending the school board under the auspices of defending the dress code, than you have in any real attempt to defend her civil rights or addressing the board's decision to violate those rights.



If you had gone to the links provided, at least one of them has links to the papers filed. They are public record after all.



As I understand it, the dress code, if applicable in this situation, could have been worked around by the girl, but the issue is that the school did not want the two girls to go as a couple; did not want them expressing their affection for each other at the dance; and did not want then slow dancing together.

Other students are allowed to do so but because it is two girls, the school board has decided not to allow them to do so.

The majority suppressing the minority to protect some imagined sensitivity of other unnamed individuals who are not identified and neither demonstrated to be majority or minority.

So they will violate the civil rights and abridge the protections of a minority to protect the FEELINGS of others? That is the cruelest form of discrimination. Something which you have spent this entire thread protecting.

And people wonder why I consider political correctness to be the venue of morons.

All people have the right to be equally protected.
That does not mean that they have the right to deny others their rights in order to avoid being offended.

Get used to that. We call it the real world.

so you think that I should be judging the town as a bible belt christian, narrow minded small town and going after christians is better ??? damm I was thinking that a unbiased overview was a better approach to understanding what is going on...


What can one expect from backward thinking, stuck in the dark ages, bible-belt fools.

Perhaps the ACLU can bring them up to the 20th century. Expecting them to get to the 21st century may be expecting too much.
After all, they are not the brightest crayons in the box.

sorry falcon.... I perfer not to judge people unfairly... besides one of the people involved is a straight A student, not bad for a backwards thinking stuck in the dark ages, bible town..... even constance has not been as judgmental of the people in that town as you have been.... what does that tell you ????



and yeah me and jeannie both posted the court papers links earlier in the thread, so we were way ahead of you there.... so telling me to go to the links that I have already posted, was a oversight on your behalf.... maybe if you read my posts better you would have avoided that

as for the schools reasoning for their ruling, I am in the dark as the school has not stated why rulings were made, ONLY constance has and she has made differing statements.... would you perfer I just judge and assume without proof of facts and then possibly look like a biased bigot if proved wrong ???

and yes all people have the right to be equally protected, I agree.... the right of people to a full and undisturbed education at school is one of the main ones... that is the right of every student, I will endorse that right regardless... its the reason we have schools...
and yes I support the rights of students to express and dress... provided that it doesn't infringe on or interfere with the ability of others to enjoy a undisturbed class room lesson
so you can stand up for the rights of students that want to wear high heels to school, or a tux to the prom if you want... but please, respect the rights of others to gain a education .... and the ability to read threads and see that people have already posted links to documents that you then tell them to read

[MarieDelta]

marie

....

Being told to keep your mouth shut isn't freedom, it is repression.

FWIW I think student groups, like GSA or other groups are a good thing. It sounds like you have the freedom to be who you are, as long as you dont make a fuss.

There is a growing movement within the therapeutic community to help kids who are trans deal with their issues earlier. There have been more and more of these kids come out in recent years. In my opinion (and that of the therapists) this is a good thing (see TYFA (http://www.imatyfa.org/).)

I dont believe that this person did this to create a disturbance. I think the school board has done a poor job of dealing with both of these issues, and were I a parent in this district I would do my best to see them removed.

On a related note, Dan Savage has put up the names and email addresses of the School Superintendent and the Principal on his site as part of a peaceful protest (see here- http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3627249)


E-mail, call, and fax Itawamba Schools superintendent Teresa McNeece (tmcneece@itawamba.k12.ms.us, phone 662-862-2159 ext. 14, fax 662-862-4713) and Itawamba Agricultural principal Trae Wiygul (twiygul@itawamba.k12.ms.us, 662-862-3104). Then join the Facebook page "Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom." And, finally, make donations to the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition (www.mssafeschools.org), which is organizing an alternate prom that will welcome all students, and make a larger donation to the ACLU LGBT Project (www.tinyurl.com/yl9mvkb).

Call, write, fax, donate. Constance needs to know that there are people all over the world who are on her side. And, more importantly, Itawamba County Schools needs to know that we're not going to let them get away with this. Be respectful, but be relentless. Let's show these bigots what a real distraction looks like. Get 'em.

[FalconAngel]

so you think that I should be judging the town as a bible belt christian, narrow minded small town and going after christians is better ??? damm I was thinking that a unbiased overview was a better approach to understanding what is going on...

I haven't gone against Christians, in general, just these specific type of Christian. You choose to support the prejudice and there is no defense for you on that one. But I do know what these Bible belt towns are like in this country. And the town in question is in this country.

You chose to not be unbiased. Your posts proved that, defending an imagined issue with the dress code and having NO understanding of civil rights laws in THIS country. Which is why I don't make uninformed, sweeping claims about the laws in YOUR country. You do not live here and I do not live there.

An unbiased approach was the furthest thing from your mind and all of your posts prove that.



sorry falcon.... I perfer not to judge people unfairly... besides one of the people involved is a straight A student, not bad for a backwards thinking stuck in the dark ages, bible town..... even constance has not been as judgmental of the people in that town as you have been.... what does that tell you ????

I don't tend to judge people unfairly, either. But there are some things that the claims don't jibe with the events and facts of the situation. Anyone who doesn't get suspicious about that, at the very least, is simply uninformed or not paying attention.

Of course she hasn't been judgemental about them. They are her neighbors and she has to live with them, so she is hedging her bets on that part. I would be willing to bet on the fact that, inside, she is seething over this. But right now it is all about appearances, which is a big thing in American small towns.



and yeah me and jeannie both posted the court papers links earlier in the thread, so we were way ahead of you there.... so telling me to go to the links that I have already posted, was a oversight on your behalf.... maybe if you read my posts better you would have avoided that

I sent you to the links that I posted, not yours, but by ignoring that, you can make that foolish and bogus claim that I sent you to your own links.

One very important point that you consistently ignore is the fact that the school board has already publicly stated that the reason that they did what they did were based almost entirely on her sexuality and the gender of her date.
And has anyone noticed that the majority of folks supporting the school board are those people who are leaders of organizations that are already known for supporting an anti-GLBT causes when the subject comes up?



as for the schools reasoning for their ruling, I am in the dark as the school has not stated why rulings were made, ONLY constance has and she has made differing statements.... would you perfer I just judge and assume without proof of facts and then possibly look like a biased bigot if proved wrong ???

Again, the school has made a public statement, which I have already posted, about why they did what they did and they were very specific in making a point of the fact that they did not want two girls slow dancing together or showing romantic affection in a public place or event held by the school; something that they allow straight students to do with reasonable restrictions for public decency laws and such, of course.



and yes all people have the right to be equally protected, I agree.... the right of people to a full and undisturbed education at school is one of the main ones... that is the right of every student, I will endorse that right regardless... its the reason we have schools...

The education is not in question here, so you bringing it up is just a poor attempt at some bad sleight of hand arguments. That doesn't wash with anyone following this issue.

The dance is not a function of the education process, it is a social one that the school is running, therefore the rules need to be relaxed from the rules of the learning environment of classes. Anyone who does not see that is truly not paying attention to the facts.



and yes I support the rights of students to express and dress... provided that it doesn't infringe on or interfere with the ability of others to enjoy a undisturbed class room lesson

Again, what does a social function, held outside of school grounds, have to do with the classroom environment?

They are two different things, so get off that bandwagon already. It is a distractive argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.



so you can stand up for the rights of students that want to wear high heels to school, or a tux to the prom if you want... but please, respect the rights of others to gain a education .... and the ability to read threads and see that people have already posted links to documents that you then tell them to read

How long are you going to hang on to this distractive argument in order to avoid addressing the real issue?

The Prom is not a function of the learning process of the school. Classroom rules do not apply there.

The prom is nothing more or less than a social function.

What part of that confuses you so tremendously that you insist on applying classroom rules to it?

[FalconAngel]

Being told to keep your mouth shut isn't freedom, it is repression.

Thank you, Marie, for posting that point so succinctly.

[*jeannie*]

while there are LGBT students in schools, they are encouraged to keep quiet at school to avoid bullying and other issues, in the interests of a better education

so new zealand schools have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, i see.

i agree with Marie, "Being told to keep your mouth shut isn't freedom, it is repression."


our anti discrimination laws are effective and working, and we do have equal rights for all.....

then why this contradiction from your own mouth (and in the same post)?


in nz, the lesbian would be allowed to attend the prom with her partner and dance equally with the other students, and the crossdressing student would have been suspended and sent for counseling and possible family / school mediation

so, in new zealand it's standard practice to discriminate against crossdressers. that's clearly not equal rights.


the schools have a unspoken policy of do not reveal yourself to be different cos you will become a target that we can not protect due to NZ law...

they should concentrate on putting a stop to those who target them, not on putting a stop to those who are targeted. since those who are doing the targeting are the ones doing the wrong.

forcing, or trying to force, any person to not be himself/herself is nothing less than a form of oppression.


me and jeannie have both posted links to the court papers and we have both read them.....

i never posted a link to any court papers. you have me confused with someone else.

[Long Duck Dong]

so new zealand schools have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, i see.

i agree with Marie, "Being told to keep your mouth shut isn't freedom, it is repression."



then why this contradiction from your own mouth (and in the same post)?



so, in new zealand it's standard practice to discriminate against crossdressers. that's clearly not equal rights.



they should concentrate on putting a stop to those who target them, not on putting a stop to those who are targeted. since those who are doing the targeting are the ones doing the wrong.

forcing, or trying to force, any person to not be himself/herself is nothing less than a form of oppression.



i never posted a link to any court papers. you have me confused with someone else.

no actually the students do.... they refuse to attend LGBT groups in schools cos it puts a target on them from school bullies....
we tried it where the place I live, and we have a estimated 300-400 LGBT students.... we contacted the school about it, and the school spoke with the students, and the students replied in a way that did not surprise me...
they basically said, they were at school to get a education.... the last thing they wanted, was to paint bullseyes on themselves by outing themselves at school as LGBT.... something I do understand as bullying is epidemic in NZ

we do not discriminate, we protect the students, and by addressing the crossdressers, its ensured that they get access to all counseling, therapy and help they need, specially if they are trans....
they are not regarded as mentally ill in nz.... they are regarded as people with special needs ( not to be confused with mentally challenged people, mentally ill people or disabled people who are also referred to as people with special needs )
most bullying is nz, is not violent, its emotional and mental abuse of students, which is more dangerous as its harder to detect and stop...so action is taken faster to protect the students but its like trying to stop water with a bloody sieve....

if you have the magic cure for bullying, please share it with the rest of the world..... we enabled epidemic bullying by removing the ability of the schools to take action against kids, cos stopping them having a education is a invasion of their rights, so they know that they can be suspended for bullying only if the school can prove they are doing it.... but they also know that due to the privacy laws and youth protection laws that protect the rights of the students, the schools are dammed near powerless to stop the bullying
that is what equal rights and anti discrimination laws can do if worked into society the wrong way

yes I could not remember if it was you or marie, sorry about that, I was extremely over tired when I posted that.....

now we have uniform rules and set dress codes, that do not allow for crossdressing in schools.... the reason for that is simple.... the schools are putting education first.... and it has been easier to do that, then apply different rules for different students......
that is the issue in the US with the crossdressing student, you would need the school to change the rules to accommodate that student and others that cross dress... but then you would need to create another set of rules to stop excessive abuse of the rules by non crossdressing students that will see it as a way to express themselves in ways that they normally would not, but are not doing it cause of a genuine desire, just the desire to do whatever the hell they want......

so the moment you do that, you are adding a bigger element of discrimination into the school system... instead of discriminating against one student, you could be discriminating against 50 but 50 different cases of freedom of expression and crossdressing etc.... each of those cases will tie up school staff and school time... is that what you believe is the best option...????

[*jeannie*]

no actually the students do.... they refuse to attend LGBT groups in schools cos it puts a target on them from school bullies....
we tried it where the place I live, and we have a estimated 300-400 LGBT students.... we contacted the school about it, and the school spoke with the students, and the students replied in a way that did not surprise me...
they basically said, they were at school to get a education.... the last thing they wanted, was to paint bullseyes on themselves by outing themselves at school as LGBT.... something I do understand as bullying is epidemic in NZ

how do you see where you're going when you're back-peddling? do you wreck often?


we do not discriminate, we protect the students, and by addressing the crossdressers, its ensured that they get access to all counseling, therapy and help they need, specially if they are trans....
they are not regarded as mentally ill in nz.... they are regarded as people with special needs ( not to be confused with mentally challenged people, mentally ill people or disabled people who are also referred to as people with special needs )
most bullying is nz, is not violent, its emotional and mental abuse of students, which is more dangerous as its harder to detect and stop...so action is taken faster to protect the students but its like trying to stop water with a bloody sieve....

suspending someone from school for being a crossdresser is not protecting them. it is preventing them from getting that education you so often say is what the students are really there for.

if people stay alert they can catch it. too bad they are too lazy and/or uncaring enough to stay alert.


if you have the magic cure for bullying, please share it with the rest of the world..... we enabled epidemic bullying by removing the ability of the schools to take action against kids, cos stopping them having a education is a invasion of their rights, so they know that they can be suspended for bullying only if the school can prove they are doing it.... but they also know that due to the privacy laws and youth protection laws that protect the rights of the students, the schools are dammed near powerless to stop the bullying
that is what equal rights and anti discrimination laws can do if worked into society the wrong way

so, suspending a crossdresser from school doesn't stop that student from havng an education? it definitely hinders it to say the least.

also, it seems obvious, from what you're saying, that new zealand only pretends to have equal rights and anti-discrimination as they have made it a hate crime paradise by taking away the right to punish bullies. great idea! (extra heavy on the sarcasm)


now we have uniform rules and set dress codes, that do not allow for crossdressing in schools.... the reason for that is simple.... the schools are putting education first.... and it has been easier to do that, then apply different rules for different students......
that is the issue in the US with the crossdressing student, you would need the school to change the rules to accommodate that student and others that cross dress... but then you would need to create another set of rules to stop excessive abuse of the rules by non crossdressing students that will see it as a way to express themselves in ways that they normally would not, but are not doing it cause of a genuine desire, just the desire to do whatever the hell they want......

allowing crossdressing doesn't cause people who aren't crossdressers to take up the habit.


so the moment you do that, you are adding a bigger element of discrimination into the school system... instead of discriminating against one student, you could be discriminating against 50 but 50 different cases of freedom of expression and crossdressing etc.... each of those cases will tie up school staff and school time... is that what you believe is the best option...????

you just don't seem to understand.

[Long Duck Dong]

I haven't gone against Christians, in general, just these specific type of Christian. You choose to support the prejudice and there is no defense for you on that one. But I do know what these Bible belt towns are like in this country. And the town in question is in this country.

You chose to not be unbiased. Your posts proved that, defending an imagined issue with the dress code and having NO understanding of civil rights laws in THIS country. Which is why I don't make uninformed, sweeping claims about the laws in YOUR country. You do not live here and I do not live there.

An unbiased approach was the furthest thing from your mind and all of your posts prove that.




I don't tend to judge people unfairly, either. But there are some things that the claims don't jibe with the events and facts of the situation. Anyone who doesn't get suspicious about that, at the very least, is simply uninformed or not paying attention.

Of course she hasn't been judgemental about them. They are her neighbors and she has to live with them, so she is hedging her bets on that part. I would be willing to bet on the fact that, inside, she is seething over this. But right now it is all about appearances, which is a big thing in American small towns.




I sent you to the links that I posted, not yours, but by ignoring that, you can make that foolish and bogus claim that I sent you to your own links.

One very important point that you consistently ignore is the fact that the school board has already publicly stated that the reason that they did what they did were based almost entirely on her sexuality and the gender of her date.
And has anyone noticed that the majority of folks supporting the school board are those people who are leaders of organizations that are already known for supporting an anti-GLBT causes when the subject comes up?




Again, the school has made a public statement, which I have already posted, about why they did what they did and they were very specific in making a point of the fact that they did not want two girls slow dancing together or showing romantic affection in a public place or event held by the school; something that they allow straight students to do with reasonable restrictions for public decency laws and such, of course.




The education is not in question here, so you bringing it up is just a poor attempt at some bad sleight of hand arguments. That doesn't wash with anyone following this issue.

The dance is not a function of the education process, it is a social one that the school is running, therefore the rules need to be relaxed from the rules of the learning environment of classes. Anyone who does not see that is truly not paying attention to the facts.




Again, what does a social function, held outside of school grounds, have to do with the classroom environment?

They are two different things, so get off that bandwagon already. It is a distractive argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.




How long are you going to hang on to this distractive argument in order to avoid addressing the real issue?

The Prom is not a function of the learning process of the school. Classroom rules do not apply there.

The prom is nothing more or less than a social function.

What part of that confuses you so tremendously that you insist on applying classroom rules to it?

ok.... sighs.... since you are not able to understand this, I will break it down

the town is in the bible belt..... the own, houses, buildings, businesses and people..... now unless they are all clones... there is the possibility that not all of them are close minded.... people can change... its people like you that are quick to judge, that may miss that fact.....
so in simple terms, you may not be able to just move the town from the bible belt, but people in the town can change.....

that is why I am not making sweeping statements, you do enuf of that with your labelling of the town and by that action, each person in it.....
I make sweeping statements about my town and my country, I acknowledge the good and the bad of our laws, and the problems caused and fixed by them.... yet I see many Americans complaining about their country ... but they stop short of how to fix issues, and the complexities caused by some of the possible fixes.... something we have done in NZ, and found that we have made the problems worse by trying to make everybody equal...
even the students are fighting against changes that could benefit them... what does that tell you ????? and by that I am refering to the LGBT students that do not want LGBT support groups in schools

now, you need to read this carefully.... I deal in proof.... IE, official documents and statements, not hearsay..... constance has made 4 differing statements about what the school board said, the school board released one statement.....
I am not saying that constance is lying at all, I am asking why the statements are changing so much....
I do believe that the school did not allow both people to attend the prom at the same time but the rule on the dancing can apply to ALL students... unless you are gonna try and tell me that hetero students are allowed to simulate sexual actions on the dance floor and not be ejected but a lesbian couple can not touch while dancing..... cos if you try that BS I will immediately ask if you still call the town a narrow minded town...
therefore the dancing issue can not be ruled as discrimination unless you have proof that it would be applied UNFAIRLY....

I also have no interest in who is supporting who.... I am think about the rights of the students, the lesbian, the crossdresser and the student body... and I will be interested in and FULLY SUPPORTIVE of a working compromise for ALL the students that has a minimum of issues, in regards to dress, dress code and contact between sutdents, at the school and school related events.... I actually hope that a good compromise can be reached that allow the rules to still stop any disruptive issues without infringing on the students abilities or rights to a education.....
I can not believe that people are so fucking hooked on a couple of students rights and the issue of discrimination that they are still not seeing what I am saying

so I will spell it out...
# all students should have the right to a education, their ability to learn lessons and gain grades should not be infringed upon, above all else

# all students should be allowed to wear a reasonable form of dress under school rules, that cause a minimum of issues or disruption at school and school related events ( ie females wearing tux )

# a school should have the power to act within reason to minimize any risk of bullying or education disruption to a student that could impair a good education, if that includes asking the student to change clothing to avoid bullying that may cause long term harm or injury to a student of a emotional and mental nature, so be it.... the school has a obligation to all students to look out for and after them and their future and ensure the best possible options within the education system

now, yes I support the school and the students on different aspects.... and yes, I have stated that I think the school and the students are both at fault in some areas....
that is called having a balanced opinion and overview... I am not taking one side or the other... but looking at possible compromises and balances that to not remove the schools ability to enforce rules, but at the same time do not infringe on a students right to freedom of expression and gaining a education....
I have no idea why people are struggling with that part....

now I have been talking about 2 seperate issues in the school, one is the prom issue, the other is the crossdressing issue....
to my understanding, the school issued a seperate set of guidelines for the prom so there is the school rules and the prom rules.... again I had asked about them earlier in the thread, and you are telling me now that they are different events and the school rules do not apply.....
is it possible for you to read the thread and work out that I already know there is two different sets of rules.... jeannie and marie both have been very helpful with providing links and other proof, so can you please stop trying to tell me that I am wrong on a issue that I addressed 2-3 pages ago .... which is the different rules and guidelines cos I already know about them....



I actually know the difference between a classroom lesson and a dance... and I have never referred to the prom as a learning process.... you did but told me I was wrong for saying it ???? I have been referring to the prom as a school related event, not a classroom lesson
please falcon... do me a big favour..... try remedial learning classes, you are having major issues with reading things correctly

[Long Duck Dong]

So a girl can wear pants and it's all ok, but if I wear panties, heels and a mini-skirt, suddenly I need counselling and therapy???

Drop Fucking dead !!! With thinking like this, it's no wonder trans people find this forum discriminating against them. Thank goodnees Falcon, mariedelta and jeannie have taken up the argument against this LDD. I'd love to carry on but it seems like such a pathetic waste of time. I sure hope LDD does not acquire some position of authority over others.

BiCD4U.... yet again, you are another one that is too busy thinking they are right and jumping to conclusions..... if you have asking what type of counselling and therapy, you would have not made such a bloody ass of yourself

yes crossdressing students are sent for counselling and therapy, its called support and help, are their needs being meant, do they need extra support, have they got access to all the info they need and help, do they need psych support etc.... in NZ you must have a 2 year minimun of intense counselling and therapy to be considered for GRS

to my understanding and based around what jeannie and marie has said in other threads, counselling and therapy is a requirement for trans to be eligible for GRS in the USA too but they would have to confirm the details of that and if its available in schools

if marie and jeannie are arguing that support for trans is wrong and that aiding and assisting them on their path that could result in GRS, is wrong, I have never seen it in this forum and I doubt I ever will

this is why I ask for clarification a lot..... to make bloody sure I have not read things wrong..... but I love the way I can getting told I am wrong, by people that have got shit wrong and come after me.... yet again

[darkeyes]

Duckie darlin'.. somehow I think you fall into the trap that so many want you too. Because some of us wear clothing which is not of the "norm" we need therapy to cure us of our ills?? It doesnt matter..or it shouldn't.. this therapy lark..its not that long ago non-straight people were sent into therapy to cure them of their abnormality...in some parts of the world even in so called civilised countries they still are.. what is clothing apart from garments which protect us from the cold or burning sun? They help us feel good if they are right. My idea of right for me is not everyones. My idea of dress or anything else of what is right for you or any other man, or woman for that matter is a matter of taste. I scowl at what I think of as bad taste, and hate to see what i think of as badly dressed people. I know in my own mind what I think looks wrong... but my opinion is irrelevant when it comes to how another person sees themselves as is theirs to what I clothe myself in to feel good...

If lots of men suddenly went about wearing what are considered womens clothes, or women in mens would I think it odd? Yes.. at first... but like anything else we get used to it.. and what matters is how people feel in themselves...how they think and what they are to themselves... is that not what we as gay and bisexual people are about? And we insist therapy for that???? For people being themselves??? I think not.....

[*jeannie*]

even the students are fighting against changes that could benefit them... what does that tell you ????? and by that I am refering to the LGBT students that do not want LGBT support groups in schools

even the students are fighting against changes that could benefit them? that is absurd.


therefore the dancing issue can not be ruled as discrimination unless you have proof that it would be applied UNFAIRLY....

of course it applies to all students. no student may dance with a same-sex partner and that is discrimination against any who would have a same-sex partner. don't you get it? it IS discrimination.


I also have no interest in who is supporting who....

well, seeing as you seem to be supporting the discrimination, it's natural for you to try to downplay the who is supporting what aspect.


I can not believe that people are so fucking hooked on a couple of students rights and the issue of discrimination that they are still not seeing what I am saying

the rights of those "couple of students" have been violated. we cannot believe that you cannot see that.


now, yes I support the school and the students on different aspects.... and yes, I have stated that I think the school and the students are both at fault in some areas....

the students did nothing wrong. only the school did.


that is called having a balanced opinion and overview...

actually, that is called playing both sides of the fence. you cannot support both sides of any matter and truly be supporting either. now you are hedging your bets.


I am not taking one side or the other...

no, you are taking both the right side and the wrong side at the same time. you're hedging your bets. you don't want to be on the losing side so you are playing both sides. you're bound to be on the winning side either way. i must point out tho that you are bound to be on the losing side also.


jeannie and marie both have been very helpful with providing links and other proof,

the only link i provided in this thread is the one in the original post by me which started this thread.


to my understanding, the school issued a seperate set of guidelines for the prom so there is the school rules and the prom rules.... again I had asked about them earlier in the thread, and you are telling me now that they are different events and the school rules do not apply.....

you, yourself, keep going on about how both sets of rules, school and prom, state no student can do anything viewed as disruptive. do you normally miss what you, yourself, are saying?

[Long Duck Dong]

even the students are fighting against changes that could benefit them? that is absurd.



of course it applies to all students. no student may dance with a same-sex partner and that is discrimination against any who would have a same-sex partner. don't you get it? it IS discrimination.



well, seeing as you seem to be supporting the discrimination, it's natural for you to try to downplay the who is supporting what aspect.



the rights of those "couple of students" have been violated. we cannot believe that you cannot see that.



the students did nothing wrong. only the school did.



actually, that is called playing both sides of the fence. you cannot support both sides of any matter and truly be supporting either. now you are hedging your bets.



no, you are taking both the right side and the wrong side at the same time. you're hedging your bets. you don't want to be on the losing side so you are playing both sides. you're bound to be on the winning side either way. i must point out tho that you are bound to be on the losing side also.



the only link i provided in this thread is the one in the original post by me which started this thread.



you, yourself, keep going on about how both sets of rules, school and prom, state no student can do anything viewed as disruptive. do you normally miss what you, yourself, are saying?

yes, jeannie, the students themselves said no to support groups in schools, they just wanted to be treated like every other student....
it surprised me, but at the same time I did understand what they were saying... they are covered under human rights and anti discrimination, the last thing they wanted to do was have the status as equal to everybody else, then turn around as say they were different therefore they should have special status....
school bullies look for targets, the students themselves minimised their own visibility for the school bullies

now the students that are causing the issues in schools are the ones to do want the rules changed to suit selected groups on the grounds of religion, race etc....
we are a country of anti discrimination, but we have to provide maori schools, maori rights, maori healthcare, etc.... and if we do not, we get called racist, but they want the same rights and to be treated the same as every other nz'er

I have not denied its discrimination, I have actually stated that it infringes on the rights of EVERY student, not just the LGBT.... ANY student should have the same rights to dance with who they please, as long as its reasonable dancing and not offensive or visibly sexual..... again that right should apply to every student!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its others that are playing the selective student rights card....

again, I am supporting the rights of ALL students equally, the right to a education, however the right to freedom of expression and rights of expression is a issue that has to be handled on a case by case basis.... and that is the issue, do you have different rules for each student, or one set of rules for all students..... the moment you have different rules for each student, you create a issue of discrimination on a larger scale....cos you are affecting more students..... so instead of telling me what I am not seeing, how about you address a way to remedy the issue for the students without discriminating against ANYBODY.....
that is something that nobody is doing in the thread, they all wanna point the finger and blame, but not actually look at how hard a fix will be.... so you focus on two students and talk about their rights.... and ignore how bloody hard it will be to sort the thing out and create the rules so they become balanced for ALL students...

yet again, I can not lose a fight I am not fighting, I am trying to look at the issue from every side... but so far, I have 2 trans, one CD ( Bicd4U needs to correct me if I am wrong on that ) and falcon, telling me that I am not seeing things as they are..... the issue there is I am looking at the school board, all the students, the lesbian, the crossdresser and looking at options and solutions and not just sitting on my ass screaming discrimination, discrimination discrimination.....
so again, how about you all take a deep breath, sit down for 5 minutes and instead of trying to preach about the injustices of the world, you look at possible solutions to the issue, as I have already posted about nz and how we got it wrong on a lot of fronts with our way of handing kids rights....
but again I have noticed that nobody else is looking at the issues from that point of view and I am inclined to believe its cos they all know that the moment they do, they will also show that fixing it is not as easy as slamming people in a forum

where did I say the students were only at fault, I said there is issues on both sides that need to be addressed..... again, BOTH sides.... I am not sitting here, saying that the students are right, end of story..... so again, I am looking at possible solutions and ideas and fixes for the issues and that requires me to look at all possibilities, the fact that others can not see past the fact that they wanna slam the school board, is NOT my problem, ... the fix for that is a open mind towards the issue and a desire to work to offer solutions, once again, something that nobody else is doing....

I have already acknowledged a number of times that yes both sets of rules can be disruptive.... hence the school is trying to limit the disruption and doing it the wrong way..... I am happy to admit that
and yes I am being disruptive in the thread, cos I am actually posting with a open mind, not just sitting in the thread screaming about discrimination
we know there is discrimination, I moved beyond it 3-4 pages ago, you lot are still stuck on it..... so again, are you gonna talk about ways to change things for the better for the students ALL of the students, or just post another 8 pages of telling me that unless I only side with you and ignore the rest of the students etc, that I am wrong.....

I personally think if thats the way you wanna deal with things, its best you put me on ignore, cos I am clearly challenging your right to be close minded to anything other than you wanna see, and thats two students, discrimination and a school board that you wanna slam.... and fuck the other students, ways the school board can adjust the rules, a good outcome to the court case etc etc....

[Long Duck Dong]

Duckie darlin'.. somehow I think you fall into the trap that so many want you too. Because some of us wear clothing which is not of the "norm" we need therapy to cure us of our ills?? It doesnt matter..or it shouldn't.. this therapy lark..its not that long ago non-straight people were sent into therapy to cure them of their abnormality...in some parts of the world even in so called civilised countries they still are.. what is clothing apart from garments which protect us from the cold or burning sun? They help us feel good if they are right. My idea of right for me is not everyones. My idea of dress or anything else of what is right for you or any other man, or woman for that matter is a matter of taste. I scowl at what I think of as bad taste, and hate to see what i think of as badly dressed people. I know in my own mind what I think looks wrong... but my opinion is irrelevant when it comes to how another person sees themselves as is theirs to what I clothe myself in to feel good...

If lots of men suddenly went about wearing what are considered womens clothes, or women in mens would I think it odd? Yes.. at first... but like anything else we get used to it.. and what matters is how people feel in themselves...how they think and what they are to themselves... is that not what we as gay and bisexual people are about? And we insist therapy for that???? For people being themselves??? I think not.....

darkeyes, I do think that therapy is good for trans students, it would help them get ready for any transitioning / GRS etc.... it would perpare them for the future and I do stand by the experts that do say the sooner the better for people that are trans and will benefit greatly from the support and help that therapy can provide

I am a strong advocate of non invasive therapy, as in assisted change therapy either in groups or solo...
what that is, is a person or people that have walked the walk and talked the talk of transition and transitioning and are in the best position to assist the students that are crossdressers and trans, to ensure they get the best possible help and support.....
I perfer dealing with hands on people, like jeannie and marie that know what its all about to be trans, over somebody like falcon who doesn't ... so if I was to refer a trans natured person to somebody that could help them, I would send them to jeannie and marie, cos I know they have the knowledge and expertise in that area.....

where people are getting it wrong once again, is they are thinking of therapy as in you need psych help, you have a mental illness....
here in NZ we do not treat trans as mentally ill or dysfunctional people, we treat them as normal people that need assistance and help to gather their thoughts and more forward on their path, not sideways or backwards

I am the same when i look as all the trans in the site, they are not mentally ill or dysfunctional, tho I will acknowledge they deal with stress on a level that most people can not comprehend, due to the issues they face...

part of the reason for the urgent therapy for trans in NZ is as part of a suicide prevent measure, as we are starting to see a fast climbing suicide rate in nz, because teenagers are not able to handle issues anymore....
the boundaries that used to be there have been removed under equal rights and anti discrimination laws.... so the teenagers have enjoyed their ability to let their hair down and let rip.... unfortunately, they find when it all turns to shit, they have nothing to hang on to... because the law doesn't allow people to stop in and grab hold of the teenagers before they crash and burn, so the teenagers sink too fast and take their own lives...

I will reveal something that still haunts me....I was working with a 16 year old teenager, that was struggling to deal with issues and desperately wanted to return home but was unable to talk to their parents. under the NZ privacy act, I was not allowed to make contact with the parents unless they agreed to contact and the right to discuss the issues of the teenager and hopefully reach a resolution..... and the teenager had not given permission for it at that stage....
the came to me one day, revealing to me that they were scared cos they had been discovered crossdressing and worried to hell about what was going to happen, I attempted to get permission to contact the parents as I deemed the matter to be urgent now and believed that parental support was needed....
3 weeks later, I attended the funeral of the teenager, they had hung themselves... I was later to find out the father was also a crossdresser,
a single law had cost a life because i could not contact a supportive family...
a law created to protect a teenagers rights to privacy, had cost them their life.....

I know the price that can be paid in the fight for human, civil and equal rights... I have buried a number of them over the years.... so yeah I would rather be outspoken, than bury another person trapped because the laws that gave them their freedom, also took their lifelines away....

[Long Duck Dong]

Sorry, you're the only ass in this thread and it's been proven by your verbose posts and not just by me. Besides who are you to judge me an Ass? Perhaps a good look in the mirror would help. Now we all see why I won't post in this thread.

you were happy to jump down my throat and get it wrong, ... then tell me its my fault....??? I have to ask, do you take responsibility for your mistakes, or do you always blame others for your mistakes

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD's list of being wrong

I am just getting a summary of where I am wrong....

I asked for proof of statements by constance and the school board... I get offered statements by constance of what the school board said, .... that makes me wrong...

I mention that we do therapy for trans / crossdressing students in NZ, helpful support and counseling therapy, people read it as therapy as in psych therapy so again that makes me wrong...

I had stated that I believe that in both cases, there are faults on both sides over the way things have been handled, but because I am not taking sides, I am wrong...

so yeah, I am gonna be wrong.... cos everybody is telling me I am wrong, even when i support them and state that yes I agree with a lot of their points.... and I am gonna leave this thread to those that need to find that they are always right, even when they are telling others they are wrong for agreeing with them....

as a end note, good luck to constance and juin..... I hope she enjoys the prom with her partner, and that juin finds a common ground for their rights to wear their clothes....
and before others do it, I will do it for them, I am wrong for saying that too....

I believe that there are better solutions to resolving the matter than protests in school during school hours, but yeah again, that makes me wrong...

I wish for a peaceful resolution to the court case that bring a change to the rules for all students, but cos I say all students, yeap, that makes me wrong

I have stated that its hard to create fair and balanced rules for all students that will not discriminate on some level, and cos I said that, it makes me wrong....

I refuse to slam the town as a narrow minded bible belt town, and state that I believe that not everybody in the town is narrow minded.... so hello, that makes me wrong too

I even throw into a post, a statement about how I acknowledge the school was way out of line in the way they are handing things, and what do you know, I was told I am wrong....

can we see a pattern there.... even when i agree with posters in this thread, they tell me I am wrong, that I am not seeing discrimination with the two students....
trouble is I have actually said it 4 times in the thread, that the school was wrong in the way they handled things.... IE they discriminated....

so why am i being told I am wrong, agreeing with people and getting told I am wrong, stated that yes I acknowledge discrimination and getting told I am wrong.... and reading post after post of people saying that the school is discriminating against the students....

so I am amused that why I say what others say too, it would make them wrong too.... if I am wrong as people are too quick to say.....

this has been a interesting experience in how people are so caught up in their desire to be right, that they are not even aware when they are being supported and they are turning on the people that are supporting them in a number of areas...

that is why the LGBT community can not get their shit together and get things sorted.... they are too busy trying to be right all the time to actually see that they are the ones that are causing a lot of issues and problems to continue.....

and that is why the site forum has turned to shit.... everybody wants to be right.... people have forgotten what its like to just laugh and talk like normal people in a forum .... a community forum

so I am gonna be wrong again by wishing constance the beside of luck in the court case, and that I hope that her and her partner enjoy the prom and have a good night along with the rest of the students that appear to be very supportive and understanding even in a backwooded bible belt town.... and that juin may find a good compromise to the issue with their clothing and that the school board will be able to create a new set of rules that work for the benefit of all the students.... and I know that I am still talking about the clothing and thats wrong too....

so enjoy the thread everybody.... its been made clear that its posters are not allowed to be right when agreeing with other posters, they must be wrong regardless...and that its ok to assume and jump to conclusions about things and blame the other person when wrong conclusions are made about therapy.... bit I should not say that, its wrong too

[vengful-tenkatsu]

its bullshit for one to decided whom one can date and whom they can not

[MarieDelta]

Here in the US therapists are required to contact authorities if they suspect an individual may do harm to themselves or others. I am surprised that NZ doesnt have this in place.

I am also surprised that LGBT students don't want support, however if it is stigmatizing, I can see why many decline. Perhaps the issue is that they dont want to explain to their friends or may not be out about their sexuality.

PFLAG (http://community.pflag.org/Page.aspx?pid=191)(which isn't just for gays and lesbians or parents of) and other orgs keep their member lists close to their chest, and do not require sign ins for that very reason. In fact in some areas PFLAG is the local transgender support.

I wont argue that transgender students *may* need counseling, however I think to force them into it isn't quite right either. Here in the US the only people in *mandated* counseling are the criminal and the suicidal. (Those that would harm themselves or others.)

Just remember what Mr Miyagi said:



Miyagi: [sighs] Daniel-san, must talk.
[they both kneel]
Miyagi: Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later
[makes squish gesture]
Miyagi: get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do "yes" or karate do "no." You karate do "guess so,"
[makes squish gesture]
Miyagi: just like grape. Understand? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjo_jTVKMcU

[FalconAngel]

ok.... sighs.... since you are not able to understand this, I will break it down

Let me break it down for you.

I am willing to be diplomatic, when it is deserved, but you just broke my last nerve.
I do not have any obligation to be tolerant of people that refuse to learn;
particularly when they are arguing about laws and countries that they have a demonstrated lack of knowledge about, as you have done in spades.

You don't understand the real issue, as you have clearly demonstrated that fact. You are too interested in compromising for the sake of peace. We have seen that in human history. Britain showed that compromise, just for the sake of peace is ineffective, just prior to WWII. Shame that lesson bypassed you completely.

So let's break down your false statements, logical fallacies, distractive arguments and intentional ignorance of the issues.


the town is in the bible belt..... the own, houses, buildings, businesses and people..... now unless they are all clones... there is the possibility that not all of them are close minded.... people can change... its people like you that are quick to judge, that may miss that fact.....

Through all of this, you still think that we are blaming the town? You haven't been paying attention.

We have blamed the school board, not the town. Your statement oversimplifies the situation and makes some very broad assumptions that are based on the exact opposite of our statements.



so in simple terms, you may not be able to just move the town from the bible belt, but people in the town can change.....

But that has nothing to do with the issue of the actions of the school board; The same school board that we have made a very particular point of blaming.

Not the town. Not the girl. Not the area. When is the last time that YOU lived in an American Bible belt town?

You read things into our statements that was not even there and used it as a distractive argument that leaves the point entirely.



that is why I am not making sweeping statements, you do enuf of that with your labelling of the town and by that action, each person in it.....

And yet, your statements are sweeping in their lack of knowledge of AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS and what we have stood for in the area of civil rights.

Now, show me the post where I made any unjust sweeping statements about the town, itself. Let's see them.

Put up or shut up.



I make sweeping statements about my town and my country, I acknowledge the good and the bad of our laws, and the problems caused and fixed by them....

And yet you have made sweeping and ignorant statements of American civil rights; something which you have not the faintest clue about.

Based on what you have said here, the only presumption that we, as Americans, can make is that civil rights in your country are based on unjust compromise rather than true equality. Unequal rights, something that you have demonstrated a willingness to surrender to just for peace.

I give you the words of our 3rd President and one of our founding fathers:

"Those who surrender their rights for temporary security deserve neither rights nor security" -- Benjamin Franklin

You have demonstrated your willingness, in your own words, to surrender equality for peace. That is truly sad.



yet I see many Americans complaining about their country ...

NEWS FLASH, Einstein......... America was built on dissent, in case you never heard of the American Revolution (aka, War of Independence).
We were forged by fire and war.
We are a nation of fighters and while we are not perfect, most of us do stand up for what's right; Equality, real equality, is one of those things. Without equality, we are naught more than a puppet of a ruling class.

Perhaps that is something that you should study and learn from, for a change.


but they stop short of how to fix issues, and the complexities caused by some of the possible fixes.... something we have done in NZ, and found that we have made the problems worse by trying to make everybody equal...

Blame the politicians for that. All of their idiotic party power plays, but there are a number of grassroots organizations in this country trying to fix just that problem.
But you would know that if you actually understood Americans.



even the students are fighting against changes that could benefit them... what does that tell you ????? and by that I am refering to the LGBT students that do not want LGBT support groups in schools

Which students would that be, in this country? Let's see the list or, at least, a verifiable part of the list.

What are their reasons for that? Now it sounds like you are just making up the "facts" that you want to just to win an argument that you lost a couple of pages ago. The last act of a desperate man.



now, you need to read this carefully.... I deal in proof.... IE, official documents and statements, not hearsay.....

So let's see your proof that you are right and that you are not just misinterpreting our civil rights laws.



constance has made 4 differing statements about what the school board said, the school board released one statement.....
I am not saying that constance is lying at all, I am asking why the statements are changing so much....

And those 4 "different" quotes on this would be.......?



I do believe that the school did not allow both people to attend the prom at the same time but the rule on the dancing can apply to ALL students... unless you are gonna try and tell me that hetero students are allowed to simulate sexual actions on the dance floor and not be ejected but a lesbian couple can not touch while dancing.....

And which post did anyone say anything about allowing anyone to "simulate sexual actions on the dance floor"? All I said was that they wouldn't allow the two girls to slow dance or display their affections (as in kissing, holding hands and hugging) at the event.

Something that they were happy to allow straight couples to do.

Again, you read things in that are not there, in a vain attempt to argue against something that was never brought up, except by you.



cos if you try that BS I will immediately ask if you still call the town a narrow minded town...
therefore the dancing issue can not be ruled as discrimination unless you have proof that it would be applied UNFAIRLY....

Again, your BS is a false and misleading argument that, one more time, reads something in that NO ONE has made mention of.

They are allowing the straight student couples to display their affections, in a socially acceptable manner, and slow dance together, but this young woman and her girlfriend are not allowed the SAME RIGHT TO DO THE SAME.

What part of that are you just too stone fucking stupid to figure out?

Equal is equal. Anything less is not equal.



I also have no interest in who is supporting who.... I am think about the rights of the students, the lesbian, the crossdresser and the student body...

Again, you are lying. You have all the interest in supporting INEQUALITY through unjust compromise on the part of the GLBT and other minority groups without any real compromise on the part of the school board.

You have continually supported injustice and intolerance.



and I will be interested in and FULLY SUPPORTIVE of a working compromise for ALL the students that has a minimum of issues, in regards to dress, dress code and contact between sutdents, at the school and school related events.... I actually hope that a good compromise can be reached that allow the rules to still stop any disruptive issues without infringing on the students abilities or rights to a education.....

You are lying again.

You have never supported the idea of equality and fair/honest treatment of the entire student body. You have, instead, as demonstrated by you past posts, that you are as opposed to it as the school board members are.



I can not believe that people are so fucking hooked on a couple of students rights and the issue of discrimination that they are still not seeing what I am saying

As Dr. M.L. King said "injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere". There is no such thing as some people being more equal than others. Why do you not understand that?



so I will spell it out...
# all students should have the right to a education, their ability to learn lessons and gain grades should not be infringed upon, above all else

No one has even argued the classroom, except for you. It is not even remotely germaine to the issue at hand. It is something that you keep bringing up.


# all students should be allowed to wear a reasonable form of dress under school rules, that cause a minimum of issues or disruption at school and school related events ( ie females wearing tux )

No one has argued that point either, except you. Another case of you making things up that distract from the real issue at hand. The tux thing has already been shot down as insignificant, so give it a rest; everyone can see through that transparent distractive argument



# a school should have the power to act within reason to minimize any risk of bullying or education disruption to a student that could impair a good education, if that includes asking the student to change clothing to avoid bullying that may cause long term harm or injury to a student of a emotional and mental nature, so be it.... the school has a obligation to all students to look out for and after them and their future and ensure the best possible options within the education system

Again with the clothing issue?
Give it a fucking rest. It has been at least 3 posts from others that have told you that the issue has never been the issue at hand; just a minor point that, realistically, is neither here nor there.



now, yes I support the school and the students on different aspects.... and yes, I have stated that I think the school and the students are both at fault in some areas....

You have no clue at all about what equality really is. It isn't about not offending the majority, nor is it about compromising the rights of the minority to still not be truly equal. it is about insuring that the majority do not victimize the minority. It is to unsure that neither side has superior rights and neither side has the right to abridge the rights of others.


that is called having a balanced opinion and overview... I am not taking one side or the other... but looking at possible compromises and balances that to not remove the schools ability to enforce rules, but at the same time do not infringe on a students right to freedom of expression and gaining a education....
I have no idea why people are struggling with that part....

Not in your case. You have never taken a "balanced opinion". You have continuously sided with the clear bad guys on this issue and not conceded one single point; even after being proven to be wrong, at best, and ill-informed, at worst.



now I have been talking about 2 seperate issues in the school, one is the prom issue, the other is the crossdressing issue....

And how are they different? Isn't it a fact that both issues are about EQUALITY?


to my understanding, the school issued a seperate set of guidelines for the prom so there is the school rules and the prom rules.... again I had asked about them earlier in the thread, and you are telling me now that they are different events and the school rules do not apply.....

I have always said that they were different events. Only an imbecile would not figure that out. One is for the classroom and the other is not. Two different events.

None of this is rocket science.


is it possible for you to read the thread and work out that I already know there is two different sets of rules....

It is not possible when you interchange them for the one event.

Perhaps you should have said that about 10 or so posts ago. Not that it matters since you are still stuck on the non-issue of the dress code.



jeannie and marie both have been very helpful with providing links and other proof, so can you please stop trying to tell me that I am wrong on a issue that I addressed 2-3 pages ago .... which is the different rules and guidelines cos I already know about them....

So you can read. Did you bother to look up American civil rights laws, our Constitution and it's amendments? Clearly not.

A rule, policy or law that cannot survive Constitutional scrutiny is, under American law, not legally enforceable.



I actually know the difference between a classroom lesson and a dance...

Shame that you haven't demonstrated that statement. It might make some of your other statements believable.



and I have never referred to the prom as a learning process.... you did but told me I was wrong for saying it ???? I have been referring to the prom as a school related event, not a classroom lesson

No you didn't, but you did include it as part of the learning process.



please falcon... do me a big favour..... try remedial learning classes, you are having major issues with reading things correctly

And as soon as I do, I will forward the info to you, since you are in more desperate need of it than I am.

Next time that you want to talk about American laws or civil rights, do your homework and come to class prepared. Because you have not shown any worthiness of any kind to discuss this particular issue, in which you are clearly uneducated.

[FalconAngel]

its bullshit for one to decided whom one can date and whom they can not

Well said.

[MarieDelta]

Something occurred to me. Here in the US we have Juvenile Detention Centers for the ones who are really bad bullies and criminals. Yes they get educated, but in a more structured environment.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_detention_center)

Seems like NZ doesn't have these? Could be that is part of the issue?

Most schools here in the US have not allowed corporal punishment(paddling and certainly not caning) since the 70's. At first it was a challenge to discover methods of discipline that worked, however most schools have figured that out.

[TwylaTwobits]

OMG enough freaking nitpicking. He is trying to look at it from all sides of the issue something some do not appear to be able to do as well. Side note, Falcon, Ben Franklin was NEVER the president of the united states let alone the third president that went to Thomas Jefferson.... a great man, but also a slave owner. We have our share of mistakes in this country, every country does. Does trampling over the rights of all to provide the right for one boy to go to school in a dress sound like the founding principle of our country? Sorry what you all are not considering while you sit and bitch and moan about his right to go to school wearing whatever, you are forgetting that eventually in a town like that there will be consequences. What do you want to come back and post we fought for his right to wear a dress, now where do we send donations for flowers so when they bury him in his nice dress in a coffin we can pay our respects? Really get off your high horses, I am done with this thread and damned near done with this site.

[MarieDelta]

There are simple solutions to each of these issues:

A) Hold the prom, let the lesbian couple come and act in a civil manner jut like every other couple would be expected to.

B) Let Juin come to school dressed in clothing that follows school rules. By which I mean dressed as any other female would dress, if that is how Juin feels comfortable.

Another aside - Women don't have some gene that allows them not to take any harm from heels. So saying that the school could be sued for these damages is fallacious. If they allow one student to wear heels then it is only fair to allow all students to wear heels.

As far as the rest of the students cross dressing, I don't think there is any chance of that happening , do you? Seriously?

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding as to the way things operate here, and I mean no malice in this.

Bullying is an issue here , as it is there , however we are not shy when it comes to putting criminal students in juvenile detention centers.

Yes we've lost students to various problems, just as you have. The difference is that instead of allowing students to bully each other more , we've tried to put a stop to it.

*There isn't any point to liberty, if you aren't able to exercise it.*

The school board doesn't comprise the entire town. The town does not comprise the school board, they are separate entities.

[Long Duck Dong]

falcon... when you have worked out what persons have been presidents of your own country, come back to me, and I will show you where you are wrong about a number of things I have said and I will even copy and paste the statements that show what I have said so that you are ignore them and still tell me I am wrong....

point of interest, I was told by a number of people that therapy and counselling for students was wrong ..... do americans actually believe that helping people thru counselling and therapy to ensure their needs are being met, is wrong ???

point of interest, of the times I said the school board was wrong for their handling of the matter... how did you manage to miss all of them, ... as a number of other posters clearly saw them and remarked on them...

point of interest, you are so busy trying to justify your issues with me, that you have not read a lot of what I said, assumed that I have or have not made statements that I would be happy to repost so you can ignore them again....

point of interest, are you also going to go off on marie for saying the same thing I have... or are you just going to ignore the fact that me and marie and I dare say every other person in the thread would feel the same way...

A) Hold the prom, let the lesbian couple come and act in a civil manner jut like every other couple would be expected to.

B) Let Juin come to school dressed in clothing that follows school rules. By which I mean dressed as any other female would dress, if that is how Juin feels comfortable.

and I will add two more to maries 2

C) compromise with all the students to resolve any issues so that there is no discrimination in the school grounds by the students towards juin and constance or vice versa.... as i am concerned that there may be ill feeling and I would hate to see it escalate into a more serious issue

D) if there is not a LGBT / hetero friendly counselor / advisor at the school, that one can be provided to ensure that the students concerns are addressed cos i again would hate to see them struggling to deal with the issues in a small town that could lead to more serious issues for the students...

hey look at that, me and marie managed to post possible solutions and ways of resolving the issues at hand, for the future generations at the school...
is it any wonder why I respect marie so much.... and laugh at you falcon...cos your only contribution to the thread has been to slam people over their lack of understanding of america and the american lifestyle

btw the 3rd president of the usa was Thomas Jefferson... benjamin franklin was a founding father, but I do not live in the usa so sorry for knowing more about your presidents than you do

[Long Duck Dong]

now I am gonna give the same speech I gave to people when we are fighting for the civil union bill in nz.. uncut and exactly as i said it.... and maybe, just maybe if you read the part about helen clark, you will realise that the people you slam ...are the people that can make the most difference and they may not even believe in the cause people are fighting for.....

think about it....


We stand as nz'ers under the new zealand flag, as we are fighting for the right to marriage for all nz'ers under NZ law...

Today, we also stand here in the name of the rights of all nz'ers past and present and in the future, to show people that we believe in them, we believe in their right to be in love and have it legally acknowledged...

today is the day we stop being fools and thinking that having the law passed will be a fairy tale come true, we will gain the power of marriage, and the misery of divorce, we need to be realistic of that, while we are gaining rights of entitlement, we are losing rights of entitlement

today is about fighting for a right of choice, not a choice of rights, many of us will never use the rights we are fighting for, and many of us are supporting the rights of everybody when it flies in the face of what we believe, yet even churches and christians stand amongst us...

today we are asking helen clark, our prime minister, that has stated she disagrees with marriage, and has no children, to put that aside and sign into power, the right from all nz'ers to marry and have children.
we are asking helen clark who does not believe in religion or religious belief
to grant churchs and marriage celebrants the power to witness a marriage between any nz'er

today, we are unified and united by this single purpose, despise the fact we will disagree tomorrow with each other.... but on this one day, we stand together... and we agree ....on one thing.... its not about the rights of the one.... its about the same rights for every nz'er regardless of their gender or sexuality....

end of speech

now think about this.... helen clark is the type of person that could sit on the school board.... yet they changed a law for a country equally. regardless of what she believed...
you have a president that talked about changing your country... and he still have not changed anything... yet

so the next time people slam me over the school board and discrimation, remember I am part of a group that fought and won the rights for all nz'ers to marry...... equally.... not just a group of NZ'ers

what have you done to improve your country for the better, equally and for all

[*jeannie*]

LDD, comparing all of your posts i've read on various threads here with that speech, it seems the speech was written by someone other than you. it simply does not match with your style at all.

[FalconAngel]

falcon... when you have worked out what persons have been presidents of your own country, come back to me, and I will show you where you are wrong about a number of things I have said and I will even copy and paste the statements that show what I have said so that you are ignore them and still tell me I am wrong....

Yeah, I realized that after I went to bed last night. Benjamin Franklin was our first Postmaster General.

Thomas Jefferson was the third President. He was also the author of the Declaration of Independence; our first founding document.

So I made one mistake while tired.

If you want to nitpick like that, you have given us all a lot to do so, and we have called you on it and you have failed to learn from those mistakes.

How about you post the things that we have called you on?

You still haven't done that. Perhaps because you know that we are right about it and you cannot defend a position that you still insist on defending.

Arguing points that you cannot defend reminds me of the French Foreign Legion motto. "Fight to the last man"; the motto of the losing side.


point of interest, I was told by a number of people that therapy and counselling for students was wrong ..... do americans actually believe that helping people thru counselling and therapy to ensure their needs are being met, is wrong ???

In a way, you are right about the therapy, but in a larger way, you are wrong.
You are depending on a cure for the effects of the disease rather than treating the disease, which would prevent the effects from happening. It is a short term, or band-aid, fix. The real cure is in removing the disease, not treating the symptoms.

Point of interest..... One need not be a councilor to figure that out. In your case it takes a councilor to not figure that out.



point of interest, of the times I said the school board was wrong for their handling of the matter... how did you manage to miss all of them, ... as a number of other posters clearly saw them and remarked on them...

It does you no good to say that they handled it wrong and then in the next sentence, say that the girl should surrender her civil rights or allow them to be abridged for the sake of temporary peace.

You are, clearly, a hypocrite.


point of interest, you are so busy trying to justify your issues with me, that you have not read a lot of what I said, assumed that I have or have not made statements that I would be happy to repost so you can ignore them again....

And how much ignorance should I have to sort through to figure out that you have supported an ideology of abridging civil rights for the sake of the majority and the mistreatment of the minority.

You do not understand equality as you have already demonstrated that you never truly believed in it. You do not understand the equality struggle in AMERICA, mostly because you do not and have not lived here and continually compare your pale version of it to our understanding of it.



point of interest, are you also going to go off on marie for saying the same thing I have... or are you just going to ignore the fact that me and marie and I dare say every other person in the thread would feel the same way...

Point of interest.... Marie is smart enough to learn from your mistakes. Something that you have shown that you are not smart enough to do.

Actually, there are far more people her that understand the facts better than you do. There are far more people involved in this thread that understand American civil rights, and civil rights in general, far better than you have demonstrated any understanding of.

So, no. I do not have any confidence in your statement that every other person in this thread would agree with you.



A) Hold the prom, let the lesbian couple come and act in a civil manner jut like every other couple would be expected to.

No one her has claimed that she wanted any more than that, except for you when you read in the thing about simulating sexual acts on the dance floor.


B) Let Juin come to school dressed in clothing that follows school rules. By which I mean dressed as any other female would dress, if that is how Juin feels comfortable.

And here we go again; hopefully, you will get it this time. No one, but you, has made any real issue about the dress code for this event.


and I will add two more to maries 2

C) compromise with all the students to resolve any issues so that there is no discrimination in the school grounds by the students towards juin and constance or vice versa.... as i am concerned that there may be ill feeling and I would hate to see it escalate into a more serious issue

Again with the compromise. You just don't get it, even after all of this.

You do not compromise equality. Simple formula; Equal = Equal. Compromise of civil rights is not equal. It is inferior rights. Inferior rights are not equal.


D) if there is not a LGBT / hetero friendly counselor / advisor at the school, that one can be provided to ensure that the students concerns are addressed cos i again would hate to see them struggling to deal with the issues in a small town that could lead to more serious issues for the students...

The only ones in need of councilling on this issue there, as far as any reports have told, are the school board members.

By all reports and appearances, the students that have a problem with this girl have the problem because of the cancellation of the prom, not her sexuality.

Again, you make an issue out of whole cloth.


hey look at that, me and marie managed to post possible solutions and ways of resolving the issues at hand, for the future generations at the school...
is it any wonder why I respect marie so much.... and laugh at you falcon...cos your only contribution to the thread has been to slam people over their lack of understanding of america and the american lifestyle

Perhaps, but the solution is treating the symptoms, not the cause. Problems do not go away by treating the symptoms; they go away by treating the cause. And in this case, the cause is a lack of civil rights enforcement on the part of a government body that is required to protect the rights of ALL of the students, not just the majority. A fact that you deny, over and over again through you insistence on a policy of appeasement to the same group that has decided to abridge the rights of the girls simply because they are not straight.

I have slammed those that place their understanding of civil rights in this country in comparison to civil rights outside of this country.
You still don't understand the "when in Rome" philosophy.

Our country - our rules. Your rules do not apply here.

Why do you refuse to figure that out?


btw the 3rd president of the usa was Thomas Jefferson... benjamin franklin was a founding father, but I do not live in the usa so sorry for knowing more about your presidents than you do

And I addressed that earlier in this post, so I will not repeat myself on it in the same post.

But it was nice of you to add that in to remind folks that you are up against the wall and still out of arguments to use in defense of your position of denial of equal rights.

Are you a pacifist, by any chance? If you are, that would explain your insistence on a policy of appeasement, rather than standing up for equality and fighting for it.

One does not gain anything of value without paying a price for it.

[FalconAngel]

LDD, comparing all of your posts i've read on various threads here with that speech, it seems the speech was written by someone other than you. it simply does not match with your style at all.

I am glad that I am not the only one that noticed that. But the speech did point out one very important thing that everyone should take to heart (if they don't already).
That point being that with all of the rights we get, we have equal responsibilities to accept the consequences of having those rights and protecting those rights.

And, not to blow my own horn (well, maybe a little), few people understand what is required to protect our rights and freedoms as much as the soldiers, who have sworn oaths to protect those rights and freedoms, understand.

And as much as I support the struggle that this young girl going through, she has an easier time of it than those of us that grew up in the days when no one had even created rights for people who were GLBT.

[*jeannie*]

yes, jeannie, the students themselves said no to support groups in schools, they just wanted to be treated like every other student....

oh, i see the reason now (should have caught it before)... GLBT people don't want others to know they are GLBT because new zealand allows bullying and hate crimes against them. you, yourself, said they are not allowed to discipline bullies and such. obviously bullies and hate-crime perpetrators have all the rights in new zealand.


I have not denied its discrimination,

oh?


its others that are playing the selective student rights card....

i've only seen you playing that card here. *whispers... "oh, btw, you have some 'selective student rights cards' sliding out from your shirt cuff there."*


that is something that nobody is doing in the thread, they all wanna point the finger and blame, but not actually look at how hard a fix will be.... so you focus on two students and talk about their rights.... and ignore how bloody hard it will be to sort the thing out and create the rules so they become balanced for ALL students...

how hard a fix is? we have federal laws prohibiting discrimination. not the school board, nor any other entity, can make any rule, law, etc which is contrary to our federal laws. any such rules made are automatically rendered null and void by virtue of the fact that federal law supercedes them. the school board has a few discriminatory rules which violate our federal laws. those discriminatory school board rules are null and void and the students do not have to obey them.

as for constance... it is unlawful to discriminate against any person based on sexual preference in the USA. not being allowed to take her girlfriend to the prom as her date violates that law.

now, that does not apply only to constance nor only to lesbians. it applies to EVERYONE. if some school board somewhere in the USA happens to be comprised entirely of homosexual members, they could not discriminate against heterosexual or bisexual students and forbide them from taking opposite sex partners to the prom.

in constance's case, a heterosexual school board is discriminating against her and her girlfriend because they are homosexuals. that much is obvious.

now do you see how it works? you probably don't.


yet again, I can not lose a fight I am not fighting, I am trying to look at the issue from every side... but so far, I have 2 trans, one CD ( Bicd4U needs to correct me if I am wrong on that ) and falcon, telling me that I am not seeing things as they are.....

that's because you really are not seeing the issue as it really is.


the issue there is I am looking at the school board, all the students, the lesbian, the crossdresser and looking at options and solutions and not just sitting on my ass screaming discrimination, discrimination discrimination.....

you've only started posting possible solutions after someone else had done so a few posts back. you basically jumped on their band wagon as it caming rolling past your location.


so again, how about you all take a deep breath, sit down for 5 minutes and instead of trying to preach about the injustices of the world, you look at possible solutions to the issue, as I have already posted about nz and how we got it wrong on a lot of fronts with our way of handing kids rights....

take a deep breath, sit down for 5 minutes? you're the one here in a frenzy. you make excessively long posts and multiple posts with tons of typos (too busy burning up your keyboard to catch them) in an effort to try to convince us with a preponderance of words, contradictory statements and general babbling.



but again I have noticed that nobody else is looking at the issues from that point of view and I am inclined to believe its cos they all know that the moment they do, they will also show that fixing it is not as easy as slamming people in a forum

in constance's case, it's a simple fix. the federal judge WILL rule in her favor as the school board is obviously discriminating against her.


where did I say the students were only at fault, I said there is issues on both sides that need to be addressed..... again, BOTH sides.... I am not sitting here, saying that the students are right, end of story.....

you are playing both sides of the fence in an effort to conceal your true intention of justifying the school board's discrimination. it's pretty much transparent as we can see right through it.


so again, I am looking at possible solutions and ideas and fixes for the issues and that requires me to look at all possibilities, the fact that others can not see past the fact that they wanna slam the school board, is NOT my problem, ... the fix for that is a open mind towards the issue and a desire to work to offer solutions, once again, something that nobody else is doing....

an open mind? your mind is closed to what is really going on.

oh, btw, someone else has offered solutions. try not to sweep their efforts under the rug please.


we know there is discrimination, I moved beyond it 3-4 pages ago,

no, you haven't.


so again, are you gonna talk about ways to change things for the better for the students ALL of the students, or just post another 8 pages of telling me that unless I only side with you and ignore the rest of the students etc, that I am wrong.....

we are only telling you that because you ARE wrong.


cos I am clearly challenging your right to be close minded to anything other than you wanna see,

it is not close-mindedness when one knows what is really going on and thus does not senslessly consider other possibilities.

[MarieDelta]

I just watched Constance on Ellen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZjC_XcBMyo). I just have to say that Ellen rocks my socks off.

She did offer to put on a prom for Constance, but Constance turned her down.

Constance ended up with a $30K donation to her college fund and a internship.

Ellen really laid out the case for Constance to go to the prom.

Ellen , if you are reading this, you Rock!

[Long Duck Dong]

it doesn't match my style ???? ok I guess the way that I address the cause and effect of the law change doesn't match the cause and effect aspect of allowing only a couple of students to do as they see fit

I quess the way I address the * oppressive * lifestyle of helen clark and the right of the people, doesn't match the way I have been referring to the school board and the rights of all the students, and how a person seemingly opposed to a balanced society are the ones that can give us a balanced lifestyle

I quess the way I refer to how we will agree today and disagree tomorrow, doesn;'t match the way I have agreed with jeanine in the lesbian sgt thread yet stand as opposites ( in your eyes and others ) in this thread

I quess that the bulk of the speech that is written in a open and balanced look as the pros and cons of choices and laws, doesn;t match the way I have been talking about the pros and cons of the nz law....

so I quess the way the speech is written and said doesn;t match any aspect of my last 3 years in the site, even tho there are identical wordings, and mannerisms of posting and debating in the site....

ok... if I did not write the speech, why do I act and post in the same manner, and if I did write the speech, why are you not able to see the same mannerisms in the way I post in the site....

the reason is simple.... the speech is not something you can argue cos it doesn't pertain to the students or the school board, it doesn;t refer to discrimination by the school board,...... so that tells me again, the issue is not with what I post, its with me..... cos if it was with what I post, you would have seen the same identical patterns in the speech as in my posts and the way I put things in threads

[Long Duck Dong]

Where does it say this person is getting the help they want to continue being who they want to be? And I made an ass of myself? You write such long winded posts and you can't take care of the clarification? I think you need to learn some debating skills. You can't fault me for your own mistakes. I think you need to put brain in gear before you put keyboard in motion.



You're not very specific here either, as it could be easily inferred that the therapy is not designed to help the person continue as they are, but rather to make them conform to traditional hetero beliefs models. This would be especially true if one had encountered such backward therapy while on a journey to become fully trans. Again, YOU don't clarify and it is not my responsilbility to ask for clarification when you are so long winded and distractive. With a statement like this, you should clarify immediately and prove your statement to cooborate what you are saying. Calling me an ass only proves our argument against you and weakens your position. It further gives rissababynta reason to defend you & ask some of us to chill because we are so fed up with your lack of ability to see the issue for what it is and with an NA viewpoint, not an NZ viewpoint.

BTW, rissababynta, I notice you said nothing when LDD called me an ASS and yet you also posted that he has said nothing mean to anyone. Go figure.



It's not hard to be right in this situation knowing how NA works. I wouldn't presume to be right about what goes on in NZ. Besides, I am not the only one who sees this fiasco the way I do. I think Falocn and jeannie and mariedelta have done a wonderful job poking canyons (holes) in your argument.



Then, why don't you condense your posts and make the clarification instead of running on with verbal diarrhea? You don't do your homework and then blame others when we misinterpret what you are trying to say? Sorry, who doesn't take responsibility for their mistakes?



So, you have just admitted that you are incapable of debating this successfully with us? Is this why you are having so much trouble getting it?



Yes, and your calling me an Ass was just an example of the bullying you are describing and of your intolerance to CD's and Trans people. I'm not going to waste my time telling you where I think I fit in to that realm.

you jumped to conclusions over the therapy aspect, but if you check up, trans people get therapy, counseling and support while transitioning and after wards...
you were the one that slammed the idea of therapy and counseling as wrong..... I am the one that said trans need the support and help while transitioning cos its so hard on them.....
you could have asked what therapy and counselling I was refering to, instead of shooting your mouth off and assuming.... which a number of posters did and are still doing

you then attacked over over my reaction... which was saying you are a ass.... and btw, you are still proving it with your personal attacks

now you are coming at me cos I suffer from a form of depression and never finished high school and implying I am unable to to successfully debate ????
would you class marie delta in the same aspect as she admitted too, struggling at high school, have struggled with stress on extreme levels... and she is a engineer and as I have stated in the thread, that takes brains
and should I put my basic mechanics, wielders, carpenters ( light maintenance ) web designers, counselors, web game admin, army records, medics certs, in the fire, cos I am mentally ill ?????
maybe I should be a good lil mentally ill person and request that all us mentally ill person be locked away again like they used to.....


and as for my intolerance of CD's and trans.... could you please read my posts in this thread and others where I have spoken very highly of marie and other trans, my rl life trans friends and how I highly respect the trans community cos they deal with some real big shit and they are fuckin fantastic people....oh yeah... and the part in this thread where I refer to aspects of cross dressing myself....

so BiCD4U, you have just made a ass of yourself again....

so I would suggest you drop the attitude that would get you punched in the face by people in RL, and stop associating yourself with CD"s and trans people, cos with your attitude you are giving other CD and trans a very bad look, and thats more shit they do not need.....

and also, I give you the option of taking this to PMs and not disturbing the thread with your totally wrong and unneeded personal attacks on mentally ill people, unless of course, you are against mentally ill people....
I say that as trans people in the us in some aspects are regarded as mentally ill due to the way the health and insurance systems are run....
and that is something I have major issues with.... as jeannie and marie and the other trans in the site are anything but mentally ill

[allbimyself]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Long Duck Dong]

I just watched Constance on Ellen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZjC_XcBMyo). I just have to say that Ellen rocks my socks off.

She did offer to put on a prom for Constance, but Constance turned her down.

Constance ended up with a $30K donation to her college fund and a internship.

Ellen really laid out the case for Constance to go to the prom.

Ellen , if you are reading this, you Rock!

once again you rock for posting that, .... and yes, ellen is pretty dammed good with stuff like that....

its good to see that constance has a even brighter future now and thank you for keeping the thread updated with what is going on with constance....
thats once again, why you have my utmost respect, you are showing a ongoing interest in events and you have shared a lot of info in the thread that has been most helpful.....

btw, what is a internship, we do not have that term here in NZ
I am assuming that its what we call a apprenticeship here, and thats where you are trained with on the job training in some skilled areas with a view to gaining certification.....

[rissababynta]

So a girl can wear pants and it's all ok, but if I wear panties, heels and a mini-skirt, suddenly I need counselling and therapy???

Drop Fucking dead !!! With thinking like this, it's no wonder trans people find this forum discriminating against them. Thank goodnees Falcon, mariedelta and jeannie have taken up the argument against this LDD. I'd love to carry on but it seems like such a pathetic waste of time. I sure hope LDD does not acquire some position of authority over others.

Hmmm...Drop. Fucking. Dead. Yeah...I guess being called an ass is so much worse than that. If you're gonna tell someone that because you happen to disagree with them, you DESERVE to be called an asshole.

And uh, hi, I posted he didn't say anything mean LONG before the name calling even started which makes you calling me out pointless.

Common sense...it's a wonderful thing :/

[FalconAngel]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I know what you're feeling, because I have been feeling it myself, here.

[*jeannie*]

ok... if I did not write the speech, why do I act and post in the same manner,

you don't act and post in the same manner in this thread (where the speech clearly differs from your usual writing style). thus, i am naturally going to be suspicious.

*


you jumped to conclusions over the therapy aspect, but if you check up, trans people get therapy, counseling and support while transitioning and after wards...

you said they get suspended from school and sent to therapy. where is the sense in suspending them from school? did they do something wrong? and don't try any of that, "it's to protect them" BS.

suspending them from school hinders the process of them getting the education you so frequently claim is the reason they are there for.

*


That is really sad because I have read some of your other posts in other threads and you argue the point well, but here you are lost.

i fully agree with you on this, BiCD4u. he is sensible and intelligent in other threads but in this one he somehow fails.


but what is really in your heart about this issue can clearly be gleaned from reading between the lines of your rambling posts if one chooses to disect your wordiness.

yes, it can.

[darkeyes]

You know, there is a personal thing developed in this thread and it has now gotten to the stage where it is crushing the life out of what the thread is about and just how important it was. I say was because we are now about 100 posts too many and its getting silly. Of course there will be developments which will be equally important as the original issue, but what is happening now is people going round in circles.. a bit like dogs chase their tail.. and with just about as much success..

...I sugest you all take time out to chill, think and re-assess what you are saying, think the other is saying and stop playing silly buggers.. this issue isnt going to go away, and as and when there is something to discuss which moves the debate forward, I have no doubt a new thread will be fired up...

[MarieDelta]

btw, what is a internship, we do not have that term here in NZ
I am assuming that its what we call a apprenticeship here, and thats where you are trained with on the job training in some skilled areas with a view to gaining certification.....


An intern is a low paid position for white collar workers, usually college students. Helps give them experience in one field or another while they are going to school.

[Long Duck Dong]

you don't act and post in the same manner in this thread (where the speech clearly differs from your usual writing style). thus, i am naturally going to be suspicious.

*



you said they get suspended from school and sent to therapy. where is the sense in suspending them from school? did they do something wrong? and don't try any of that, "it's to protect them" BS.

suspending them from school hinders the process of them getting the education you so frequently claim is the reason they are there for.

*



i fully agree with you on this, BiCD4u. he is sensible and intelligent in other threads but in this one he somehow fails.



yes, it can.

if you would like to check on the the reason for suspending students in NZ,

I have stated in the thread already that NZ has a stricter set uniform / dress code than the us, so logically the reason for suspending a student would be because of a failure to adher to the dress code....

males that go to school dressed as females are most likely to suffer from emotional and mental abuse ( bullying ) as I have stated in the thread...

protection of students from bullying in NZ is a major issue, and that can be proven if you google bullying in NZ schools and read the large number of articles about how serious it is as I have posted in the thread....

so yeah.... there are valid reasons for the schools acting the way they do with students..... they have no choice, the equal rights and anti discrimination rules that we have for the protection and benefit of the students, require the schools to act in such a way.... so they do....
you have to remember that I have stated yet again, in this thread, that NZ got it wrong with equal rights and anti discrimination and it needs to be reviewed urgently.... another thing I have mentioned in this thread

now as other trans have posted in this thread.... the number of trans people murdered for being who they are.... we have the opposite in NZ, they are committing suicide at a high rate because due to the anti discrimination rules, they are not able to access a lot of possible avenues of help as they do not exist because they are viewed as forms of discrimination against other students.....

ok.... got all that ????? now in simple terms,
you want all students to have the rights of expression, knowing that trans people have been killed for being who they are... so you create a anti hate law to punish people, AFTER the fact of murder

in NZ, they are committing suicide because of the equal rights, anti discrimination and privacy laws that were created to protect them... but we treat all murderers as criminals equally.....

now in both cases, where is the protection for people.... why do we still have people dying and being killed, .... according to others, the right to dress as we see fit, is a big issue..... according to me, the right to live is far fuckin greater

you and others may be hung on the ( yes I will use the word that you all are so fond of ) discrimination of constance and juin.... but I am hung on the fact that by the admittion of a number of trans in the US.. that removing the discrimination and allowing juin and constance free reign, cos cost them their lives......
that is why I am not focussed solely on the aspect of discrimination by the school board but... as I have posted, what steps can and should be taken to ENSURE the safety of the students of ANY school, if they have the freedom to act and dress as they wish, IE juin.....

so how about people in the thread lay off me, with their childish behievour and name calling, and focus on a real issue, the safety and well being of the LGBT community and students....
this thread was about issues with discrimination of students in a small town, a situation that can be potentially voitile, yet there it 4-5 pages of posters throwing tantrums over the fact I refuse to just sit it and complain about the discrimination ... but I address many other issues and problems in the US and NZ.... to show that maybe, just maybe, the solution you want is not the best one.... cos in NZ it definately is not working that well either

[Long Duck Dong]

Now, who is jumping to conclusions??? You know nothing about me at all. But you make all kinds of assumptions about why I am an Ass. And, to ask me to go to PM"s? Why because you can't stand the truth being slapped in your face? At least people like mariedelta, whatever her problems are, can argue cogently and intelligently. You've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt in all your posts here that you cannot. That is really sad because I have read some of your other posts in other threads and you argue the point well, but here you are lost. Why can't you concede defeat on this one?

Don't dare suggest to me how to run my life. If you don't like my attitude here, maybe you can find your iggy button. If you are entitled to freely rant your non-sensical argument on these pages, I am perfectly entitled to refute and rebuttal. If you call me an Ass when I have called you no such name, what consequence should you face?

So far, only you see me as an Ass and all your supportive words towards CD and Trans people are just that - words. Anyone can say what you have said, but what is really in your heart about this issue can clearly be gleaned from reading between the lines of your rambling posts if one chooses to disect your wordiness.

I did not "attack" you for your illness. I asked if it was the reason for your lack of debating skills and understanding of the issue. Again, you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. I am well aware of the positive therapy trans people receive in adjusting themselves to society. I was questioning your convoluted explanations of that therapy because although you say it is supportive and positive, your other ramblings say you feel different about CD's and trans people. I slammed your written approach to explaining that therapy not the need for therapy itself. Look in the mirror and stop jumping to conclusions yourself. So far, you are guilty of everything you are saying I/we are at fault over.

BTW, which posters are shooting off their mouths? I only see people here defending their positions because LDD is shooting off his mouth without clear understanding of NA equal rights and related laws.

Are you threatening to punch me because, (1) that is uttering a threat and could land you in jail and (2) that is assault which could also land you in jail? You can't win the verbal argument so you resort to pugilisitc efforts to appear superior? That's definitely the sign of a superior human being!

Oh, so I am a CD/trans but not allowed to associate myself with CD's as per your dictates? OMG, what kind of a person are you? You have no idea where I fit into that realm or why I am the way I am about your blatantly wrong positon in this debate. No CD or trans person has ever complained to me and I don't think they will. It is not my argument that is badly flawed. As I see it, you are out in left field and lost as so many in this thread are opposed to your line of thinking and reasoning so you are now taking personal attacks on me as a distraction from the true argument. Calling me an Ass is a personal attack last time I checked. Further if you were truly supportive of CD and Trans people wouldn't you ask me how you could help me understand better, not threaten to punch me i the nose? Or, for some reason am I not entitled to that equal right as the other CD and Trans people you talk about supporting?

Where oh where did I say I was against mentally ill people? Jumping to conclusions again are you, LDD?

I think it is time you stopped posting on this matter as you are wasting bandwidth with your non-sensical ramblings. No doubt you will want the last word on this.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I offered the chance for you to go to pm as your issue is with me, not the subject of the thread...so I was offering a compromise in order to avoid more conflict in the thread..... its that simple

i also can not win a discussion in a thread, it is not possible.... as I have stated in the thread, the court case with constance is what needs to be won..... so the people that have the win / loss attitude are the ones that feel the need to brow beat me into submission........ as they are the ones that see the need to win what ever it is that they are trying to win..... whatever that is, I am not really sure.....

my depression is a mental illness.. your point is ????? again I am not trying to win a debate.... as there is no debate.... there is a issue that people want me to ignore any other aspect of the thread other than discrimination by a school board.... if I want to address the rights of all students, students rights etc, that is nothing to do with mental illness.... its called a open minded view

again I live in nz, you and others live in the usa, therefore your knowledge of us law may be better than mine, I agree.. but you went after me about my statement of issues in NZ cos you based your assumption around US ways of doing things..... so again, I live in NZ, not the NA.... and the way people are carrying on, I am not sure I would like to....


am I threatening you ??? no... I was making the point that its too easy to mouth off in a forum.... but in real life, it can be dangerous.... I would know that has I used to be a barman and bouncer at a bikie bar where the back bar was the LGBT bar... a dangerous mix.... so I know how uncalled for remarks can be hazardous to ones health in real life...
btw again, I am in NZ, the us law doesn't apply to me .... and in this site, DREWS law does.....
so rule two applied to a number of posts in this thread
2. Be polite - flame the idea if you feel you must, but not the person
but I have not complained or mailed drew, as I support the rights of free speech.... just not the abusive and nasty comments....

I see a few posters have addressed your posts, that tells me, that I am not the only poster that feels that your comments are uncalled for.....
and it was not a dictation on living your life and leading it at all..... its your over reaction to me and your issues with me that lead you to think that...

so the last word ??? thats up to you, if you do not post, you have given me the last word, if you post towards me again, you have not given me the last word.....

as for marie and her ability to converse in a intelligent and balanced manner, I agree, she has become the only person that has continuely adressed my questions and misunderstandings, while disagreeing with things I say, and she has not resorted to abuse or insults.....
try learning a lesson from her....

[Long Duck Dong]

An intern is a low paid position for white collar workers, usually college students. Helps give them experience in one field or another while they are going to school.

thanks for that.... I was familiar with the term from programs like ER when they refer to a medical intern..... I did google it but was not sure as I am not sure what field constance was looking to work in

but again, thanks for clarifying that for me... I was a bit concerned as her future options but it would appear ( I am assuming ) that once she leaves the school her future lays away from the town

in nz, hs is from age 12 / 13 to 17 /18 and we go in forms and years....
after that , comes university or polytech
but we refer to to HS as collage too at times so it gets confusing at times

btw, is there any updates on juin.... I did a google search and saw nothing new....

[MarieDelta]

No updates on Juin, that I can find. Of course, If I do hear something I will be sure to post it.

Here HS is from 14 - 18, It is always referred to as HS. College(and even Universities are termed "College") is after that, and can be done at any time in a persons life , if they choose to go back. Often the Government will supply loans and so forth for later education as well.

[*jeannie*]

if you would like to check on the the reason for suspending students in NZ,

I have stated in the thread already that NZ has a stricter set uniform / dress code than the us, so logically the reason for suspending a student would be because of a failure to adher to the dress code....

ok, so a transexual like myself (non-op MtoF) who dresses as what she really is would have violated a senseless and discriminatory nz school rule and been suspended.


protection of students from bullying in NZ is a major issue, and that can be proven if you google bullying in NZ schools and read the large number of articles about how serious it is as I have posted in the thread....

of course it's a major issue. it's a major issue because, as you stated in one of your posts, no one is allowed to discipline bullies.


so yeah.... there are valid reasons for the schools acting the way they do with students.....

suspending trans students and letting bullies get away with bullying such students are not valid reasons.


they have no choice, the equal rights and anti discrimination rules that we have for the protection and benefit of the students, require the schools to act in such a way.... so they do....

you keep claiming nz has equal rights. it clearly does not.

no trans student may dress as what she (MtoF) or he (FtoM) really is does discriminate against them. how many non-trans students are in the habit of dressing up like the opposite sex? none really.

note: i do not include transvestites (crossdressers) here because they dress up due to a sexual fetish. they do not dress up as the "opposite" sex due to them really being the opposite sex.


you have to remember that I have stated yet again, in this thread, that NZ got it wrong with equal rights and anti discrimination and it needs to be reviewed urgently.... another thing I have mentioned in this thread

i do believe you have both claimed nz has equal rights and it is great... and nz got it wrong with equal rights. please make up your mind.


now as other trans have posted in this thread.... the number of trans people murdered for being who they are.... we have the opposite in NZ, they are committing suicide at a high rate because due to the anti discrimination rules, they are not able to access a lot of possible avenues of help as they do not exist because they are viewed as forms of discrimination against other students.....

you have claimed the GBLT students do not want such helpful things as support groups in nz schools.


in NZ, they are committing suicide because of the equal rights, anti discrimination and privacy laws that were created to protect them... but we treat all murderers as criminals equally.....

you sometimes make statements where you just make no sense whatsoever. this is one of them.


now in both cases, where is the protection for people.... why do we still have people dying and being killed, ....

as far as the suicides go... i would lay my money on the fact that nz clearly tries to ignore the existence of GLBT people and need for support groups and other forms of help for them.

as far as the killing goes... i would lay my money on the fact that nz schools encourage bullying of GLBT students by not allowing bullies to be punished for their wrong-doings against GLBT students and, after graduating, they carry that encouragement with them throughout their lives and expand it into the realm of more severe hate crimes. great way to raise your kids, new zealanders. (sarcasm should be evident)


according to others, the right to dress as we see fit, is a big issue..... according to me, the right to live is far fuckin greater

no one said the right to live was not greater. both are rights tho. now you are trying to distract us with a right which is, admittedly, greater but is not the issue at hand.


you and others may be hung on the ( yes I will use the word that you all are so fond of ) discrimination of constance and juin.... but I am hung on the fact that by the admittion of a number of trans in the US.. that removing the discrimination and allowing juin and constance free reign, cos cost them their lives......

it could cost them their lives either way.


so how about people in the thread lay off me, with their childish behievour and name calling, and focus on a real issue, the safety and well being of the LGBT community and students....

we care about safety and well-being of the GLBT community. their safety was not the issue here but you are trying to divert it to that to get out of your failed effort to support the discrimination.

*


again I live in nz, you and others live in the usa, therefore your knowledge of us law may be better than mine, I agree..

whatever happened to your "lawyer friend in the us"? you know, the incompetent one.

[Long Duck Dong]

yeah jeannie, school rules are senseless... they require students to conduct themselves in set ways... as the emphasis in on learning and education, not how shall I dress today and what lippy should I wear


thats about as much as i want to answer cos you have already shown right them, that you has issues with school rules and that explains a lot to me now
also you are clearly not happy with the way I answer things so to avoid any more issues, I have 2 words for you

GOOGLE IT

[darkeyes]

yeah jeannie, school rules are senseless... they require students to conduct themselves in set ways... as the emphasis in on learning and education, not how shall I dress today and what lippy should I wear


GOOGLE IT

Havta agree wivya ther Duckie.. wen me wos at school it wos blazer, jumper shirt tie an skirt white knee high socks.. an me kinda looked cute in em an all.. 1 paira stud earrings an that wos it.. now its a gud bit less formal an school uniforms exist but r much more casual cept at posh schools an state schools wiv pretensions.. No make up cept for a lil bittie eyeliner an lippie (not 2 brazen hitya in face lippie eitha).. ugh..me lil face musta looked an did look horrid. Main thing is how kids conduct themsels as u say... at my school dress is expected 2 b smart an clean but school uniform is optional.. tho mos kids hav em an wear em.. funnily enuff the dress code dusn outline wot ya can wear an who can wear it, but exceptions ya cant wear r jeans an bovva boots. The jewellery rule is also much the same cept for only 1 piece round neck (wos nev specified wen me wos at school.. ), and no moren 1 ring on each hand, and no large stones...

But school isn or shudn b a fashion show tho me didn thinka that wen me wos ther.. an wivvin the school dress code both lads an lassies push it 2 its limit... an on non uniform days (once day a month ya shud c jus how much both sexes do that an all)... its 2 try an give kids best start in life we can give em by educatin them as best we can.. an if this seems 2 conflict wiv owt me's sed b4 on this thread it isn reely.. cos times change an fashions change..an kids will in ther own way force schools 2 change wiv those times.. :)

[*jeannie*]

yeah jeannie, school rules are senseless... they require students to conduct themselves in set ways... as the emphasis in on learning and education, not how shall I dress today and what lippy should I wear

if the emphasis is on learning and education the schools sure waste a lot of time emphasising how students should dress. you obviously can't see that the schools are making a bigger issue out of how students dress than is necessary.


also you are clearly not happy with the way I answer things so to avoid any more issues, I have 2 words for you

GOOGLE IT

you should try google yourself sometime.

[darkeyes]

...dus ne 1 else feel alla this bickerin is makin an interestin an incredibly important issue very dull n borin?

[Long Duck Dong]

if the emphasis is on learning and education the schools sure waste a lot of time emphasising how students should dress. you obviously can't see that the schools are making a bigger issue out of how students dress than is necessary.



you should try google yourself sometime.

actually no, they made the rules, and the students follow the rules, the students do not spend their time crying about discrimination cos they can not wear lipstick and make up and dresses.....

one of the guys I went to school with, also served in the NZ armed forces with me.... and they are now a fully transitioned trans person now....
never at any stage, did they kick up a stink about discrimination over school uniforms or cry about their rights....

if they have kicked up a stink over the school uniforms, they would have not gained the certs needed to purse their further training in the armed services and finally after they left, and gained good employment to gain the money to complete their transition.... but they did gain the certs, do the training and gain the good employment that lead to the money for the full transistion

the issue, jeannie, is one of simple understanding like I have said..... you make your life as easy and as hard as you want.....
the way people act at school can affect their own ability to gain a good education, a good education can lead to better money, better money allows for payment of the things you need to complete transition.....


now the us military could see the same thing.... students at school complaining about the discrimination over clothing.... and trans want in the armed forces ???
all the military will see, is that sooner or later, the same cries of discrimination will start with the armed forces

you can argue that point all you want..... but you are already seeing it in the schools, even you are doing it.....

here in nz, we do not have that, and yes we have LGBT in the armed forces....

so yeah, have your rights, argue that everybody in the usa should be treated equally, then argue that the rules that should apply equally, should not apply to trans people, they should be exempt from the rules
and keep fighting for your rights to serve in the us armed forces...

and once again, I will point to the fact, that we do not have the issues you have in the us.... as many of the trans community have said " we have our rights, we are equal, the last thing we want to do is go backwards again cos we are fighting to be exempt from the rules and laws that apply to everybody equally..... "

now, maybe you have not worked this out yet..... but the issue for you, is that you are too busy fighting everything and everybody, to work out that not everybody is fighting you.....
and that has been proven a number of times in this thread....

I know that you would perfer that I simply sit in a corner and shut up, and just say " discrimination by school board, bad school board " .... but take a lesson from marie..... she has been sharing info and articles etc, that have been so informative to me and others, and keeping us updated on constance and juin.... and if it was not for marie and cat in another thread, its most likely that the info would have not been shared with anybody.....

now like I have said, I am not trying to win anything, cos the only thing that needs to be win, is the court case in favour of ALL the students and the prom..... so if you want to be the winners, go for it.....
just remember, that winning a discussion in a thread means nothing in the world of rights.... so I am happy to call you the winner if you want.... if thats what you seek.... but it has not changed anything for constance and juin, has it.....

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Guys...and Gals....the story is over. Calm down. It happened. No sense getting yourselvs all heated up over a topic that has already had its 15 mins of fame, and is done with. No need for name calling, or feathers getting ruffled over something that doesnt affect/effect you directly. It wasnt Your prob, it wasnt Your town or Your kid, so take a deep calming breath and chill. The girls will more'n likely have one Hell of a huge prom with the funds allocated by Ellen, and soon it'll be a page in history.

You all have valid opinions, but life is too short to be getting yourselves all riled up over this. Its not good for you and there's nothing you can do about it, so kick back and relax.
Peace, Ya'll..:}
Cat

[FalconAngel]

Hold the phone!

Who did the name calling?

Do I need to quote your exact posts where you called me an "Ass" and then went on to threaten me? All I ever said was "Drop fucking Dead". I did not attach a name to it, so this is not any kind of a personal attack. But, you sir are another kettle of fish and a pretty smelly one by now. You've hung around this subject far too long and dug such a huge hole for yourself. It's a shame you don't have the Kuhonas to realize you are out of your league on this subject.

OMG LDD, what is your problem? When will you get the facts straight?


:banghead::banghead::banghead:


I'm with you.

I asked if he was stupid, but I never said that he was. Perhaps he means the parts where I told him that he didn't "have a fucking clue"; maybe he considers that name-calling.

Could it be, perhaps, nothing more than his ego and ethnocentrism doing his thinking and talking by applying his "appeasement of bullies standard", which he clearly accepts, to our laws?

[rissababynta]

I'm with you.

I asked if he was stupid, but I never said that he was. Perhaps he means the parts where I told him that he didn't "have a fucking clue"; maybe he considers that name-calling.

Could it be, perhaps, nothing more than his ego and ethnocentrism doing his thinking and talking by applying his "appeasement of bullies standard", which he clearly accepts, to our laws?

well, technically didn't he do the same thing? I remember him seeing that bi made himself LOOK like an ass but I don't remember him saying he was one. I could be wrong, i just don't feel like going through all the pages of bullshit to check.

[*jeannie*]

actually no, they made the rules, and the students follow the rules, the students do not spend their time crying about discrimination cos they can not wear lipstick and make up and dresses.....

obviously because in new zealand it is forbidden to discipline bullies. the GLBT people there must be cowed (as in frightened with threats, violence, etc. or the possibility of such) by the bullies and the bullying government into a stance of non-action. that seems quite evident from things you, yourself, have posted.


one of the guys I went to school with, also served in the NZ armed forces with me.... and they are now a fully transitioned trans person now....
never at any stage, did they kick up a stink about discrimination over school uniforms or cry about their rights....

sounds like he was frightened also.


if they have kicked up a stink over the school uniforms, they would have not gained the certs needed to purse their further training in the armed services and finally after they left, and gained good employment to gain the money to complete their transition.... but they did gain the certs, do the training and gain the good employment that lead to the money for the full transistion

so what you are saying is that if he had fought for his rights, he would have suffered punishment and ruin from the powers that be there in new zealand.


the issue, jeannie, is one of simple understanding like I have said..... you make your life as easy and as hard as you want.....

just how easy do you think a person's life is when they are forbidden to be themselves and constantly living with the possiblity of being ruined, attacked or even killed if they try to be themselves?


the way people act at school can affect their own ability to gain a good education, a good education can lead to better money, better money allows for payment of the things you need to complete transition.....

yes, it can. if they are suspended, expelled, beaten or killed by discriminating school boards, bullies and other hate-crime perpetrators.

sounds like you are trying to convince people that the way to be able to afford their transition is to cower before the oppressors. then once they have made the transition, they will technically be normal and thus have equality.


now the us military could see the same thing.... students at school complaining about the discrimination over clothing.... and trans want in the armed forces ???
all the military will see, is that sooner or later, the same cries of discrimination will start with the armed forces

you can argue that point all you want..... but you are already seeing it in the schools, even you are doing it.....

here in nz, we do not have that, and yes we have LGBT in the armed forces....

obviously, you don't have it in new zealand because GLBT people there are heavily oppressed. you talk about how new zealand has equal rights for everyone but then you bring up things which totally prove otherwise.


so yeah, have your rights, argue that everybody in the usa should be treated equally, then argue that the rules that should apply equally, should not apply to trans people, they should be exempt from the rules

no one said that. you want to make it out like someone said that but you're either not being truthful or simply do not understand plain english.


and once again, I will point to the fact, that we do not have the issues you have in the us.... as many of the trans community have said " we have our rights, we are equal, the last thing we want to do is go backwards again cos we are fighting to be exempt from the rules and laws that apply to everybody equally..... "

you keep saying there are equal rights for everyone in new zealand but it is obvious from some things you have said in this thread that what new zealand really has is a policy of "you are equal only if you are a normal heterosexual male or female, pretend to be one, or technically become one by transitioning."


now, maybe you have not worked this out yet..... but the issue for you, is that you are too busy fighting everything and everybody, to work out that not everybody is fighting you.....
and that has been proven a number of times in this thread....

you are wrong about that and no, it has not.


I know that you would perfer that I simply sit in a corner and shut up,

no, i do not and i do not appreciate you saying that.

everyone has the right to speak their mind. no matter what anyone says in their posts, at no time have i ever said or implied anyone should "shut up". you're trying to make me out to be an oppressive bully in the eyes of others.

i'm not like you new zealanders who want to shut up those who speak up for their rights and/or the rights of their fellow human beings.


and just say " discrimination by school board, bad school board "

the school board did wrong. i'm sorry you are too blind to see that. don't blame me for putting a stick in both your eyes. you did that sucking up to your obviously discriminatory new zealand school boards and government.


now like I have said, I am not trying to win anything, cos the only thing that needs to be win, is the court case in favour of ALL the students and the prom..... so if you want to be the winners, go for it.....
just remember, that winning a discussion in a thread means nothing in the world of rights.... so I am happy to call you the winner if you want.... if thats what you seek.... but it has not changed anything for constance and juin, has it.....

i'm only trying to help you see reality. you choose not to see it tho.

neither has anything you have done changed anything for constance and juin.

*

*


Could it be, perhaps, nothing more than his ego and ethnocentrism doing his thinking and talking by applying his "appeasement of bullies standard", which he clearly accepts, to our laws?

that is a fitting term for it... "appeasement of bullies standard".

thank you, FalconAngel. :)

this one fits also... "ass-kissing those who can kick your ass."

[FalconAngel]

actually no, they made the rules, and the students follow the rules, the students do not spend their time crying about discrimination cos they can not wear lipstick and make up and dresses.....

And dress code has to do with discrimination based on any of the RELEVANT factors of this case, how?

Stop with these nonsense arguments. DAMN!! it's like trying to teach science to a creationist; You use the same types of arguments and avoidance of the issue.



one of the guys I went to school with, also served in the NZ armed forces with me.... and they are now a fully transitioned trans person now....

Irrelevant argument. Stick to the actual issue for a change.


never at any stage, did they kick up a stink about discrimination over school uniforms or cry about their rights....

Another irrelevant and anecdotal argument.

Just once, we would all like to see you stick to the issue and actually address the issue of sexuality-based discrimination as it applies to THIS case in the US. Not NZ, where it is not the issue at hand and NZ's laws do not apply.

Again I call you out as applying your nation's laws to our nation. If you knew our laws as well as you have insisted on implying, then you would not need these distractive and irrelevant arguments to avoid the actual issue.



if they have kicked up a stink over the school uniforms, they would have not gained the certs needed to purse their further training in the armed services and finally after they left, and gained good employment to gain the money to complete their transition.... but they did gain the certs, do the training and gain the good employment that lead to the money for the full transistion

The military is a different issue, completely. Particularly with trans folks.

Stick to this issue of this case if you are going to continue.



now the us military could see the same thing.... students at school complaining about the discrimination over clothing.... and trans want in the armed forces ???

First of all, "U.S." is capitalized.

Secondly, the U.S. Armed forces have seen very much, the same thing with DADT and other, more obscure regulations that have been less of an issue, since there does not seem to be too many trans folks trying to enlist.

But, to get back on track, this is NOT the issue at hand and does not apply to this case of discrimination.

Focus, focus, focus.


all the military will see, is that sooner or later, the same cries of discrimination will start with the armed forces

you can argue that point all you want..... but you are already seeing it in the schools

You seem to be confusing our military, one of the best trained and equipped in the world, btw, with or school system.

Anyone who joins the military already knows that they will be expected to abide by the regulations and uniform standards of that service, so now you are just pulling up ignorant opinions out of your ass. and stating them as some kind of made up from whole cloth fact.

Just another creationist style argument. Take it to the extreme to defend your opinion.



here in nz, we do not have that, and yes we have LGBT in the armed forces....

We interrupt your ignorance of the facts for this news bulletin....LGBT's have served in the military since the first armies in the world were formed. They haven't always had to closet themselves either. That is a more recent development in the past 200 years or so.

If you are going to talk about the military, the at least study your military history a little better.



so yeah, have your rights, argue that everybody in the usa should be treated equally, then argue that the rules that should apply equally, should not apply to trans people, they should be exempt from the rules
and keep fighting for your rights to serve in the us armed forces...

But that is the real point that you are not getting, and quite clearly, are choosing to not understand.
The rules do apply to everyone equally. Enforcement of those rules are the issue when you have people that think that the rules do not apply to them in power, like this particular school board.
The rules, in this case, FEDERAL LAW which they have violated (in spirit if not in fact), have to be applied to them and their rules.



and once again, I will point to the fact, that we do not have the issues you have in the us....

Based on what you have suggest be done in this case and what you have said about the laws in NZ, no you don't have the same problems because appeasement of the majority (which is still tyranny), is the solution there. Don't fight, let them give you the appearance of equality.

Yeah. Here in the US, we called that "Separate but equal"; something that our US Supreme court struck down as being unequal. See the civil rights issues of the 50's and 60's for references.



now, maybe you have not worked this out yet..... but the issue for you, is that you are too busy fighting everything and everybody, to work out that not everybody is fighting you.....

Actually, you have it wrong.....again (why am I not surprised). We blame the people responsible for each act, not everyone. That is very selective targeting.



and that has been proven a number of times in this thread....

No........it hasn't. Your ethnocentric appeasement policies and OPINIONS are not fact.
Particularly in this case where US case law and civil rights laws apply.



I know that you would perfer that I simply sit in a corner and shut up, and just say " discrimination by school board, bad school board "

Actually, we would prefer that you stopped defending a position which you know to be wrong.

Oh yeah, we would also ask that you come to class prepared to learn, next time.



.... but take a lesson from marie..... she has been sharing info and articles etc, that have been so informative to me and others, and keeping us updated on constance and juin.... and if it was not for marie and cat in another thread, its most likely that the info would have not been shared with anybody.....

And yet, these articles that we all, including you, have read have taught you nothing about the issue;
Instead you have focused, entirely on the dress code (NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND) and surrendering her rights in favor of appeasement to the school board's prejudice.

To American's, that is just wrong.
If all that you ever learned about American history was the order of the Presidents, then you KNOW NOTHING about us. It isn't the Presidents that made this nation. It was the people. Our fight to be free from unjust English rule, our struggles as a developing nation, our struggles through a bloody civil war and our struggles through the civil rights battles that are behind and before us.

Until you can demonstrate that you know what we believe on this issue, which you have shown that you do not, shut up, listen and learn. Ask questions, but do not dare to presume what we KNOW about our civil rights in our country, (Now the name calling part) you pompous, arrogant twit. (that should be the last name-calling on my part)



now like I have said, I am not trying to win anything,

That is because you cannot win anything where the laws and rights being discussed are ones that you are obviously completely unfamiliar with.



cos the only thing that needs to be win, is the court case in favour of ALL the students and the prom.....

Now that is the first thing that you have said that has actually made sense and applied to the actual case in question.

And that has always been our objective here, since you must have slept through that part. No restrictions on a minority that the majority does not have.



so if you want to be the winners, go for it.....

Why fight for anything if you don't want to win?



just remember, that winning a discussion in a thread means nothing in the world of rights....

Your point being what? most of our efforts has been to educate you on what rights are here in the US.
Of course, you chose to try to enforce your ethnocentric view of rights into our understanding of your rights, trying to convince us that your way of appeasement and "separate but equal" is the way to go.
Eventually, your country will learn what ours did, nearly 50 years ago, that "separate but equal" and appeasement does not work.


so I am happy to call you the winner if you want.... if thats what you seek.... but it has not changed anything for constance and juin, has it.....

You can concede for whatever reason you want. If it makes your ego less bruised, go ahead and tell yourself that. Anything to protect your ego, thus preventing you from having to learn anything that is different from the way they do it in NZ.
If you insist on letting your ego write checks that your intellect can't cash, that is an issue that you, and you alone, must learn to deal with and learn to correct.

But in the end, it has been demonstrated here, over and over again, that you do not know what you are talking about on this issue in this country.
Fact is that you lost your argument a few pages ago, but insisted on standing "to the last man"; insisting that your rules should apply here.

You are wrong, of course.

Well one final lesson for you. You can either learn from it or stay ignorant.

You cannot apply your county's way of doing things to our country; conversely, we cannot apply our ways to your your country. Until you learn that lesson, you will learn nothing at all. Particularly in cases of discrimination in the US.

Next time, come to class prepared.

[FalconAngel]

well, technically didn't he do the same thing? I remember him seeing that bi made himself LOOK like an ass but I don't remember him saying he was one. I could be wrong, i just don't feel like going through all the pages of bullshit to check.

True. He did, didn't he.

I don't either. I've already read through them once and I have grown tired of teaching to the unteachable.

[Long Duck Dong]

And dress code has to do with discrimination based on any of the RELEVANT factors of this case, how?


in post 60 you make this statement


I really do not believe that the tux thing was the issue. That is a small matter, but she did want her girlfriend to go with her and as the couple that they are.


contance was not allowed to wear a tux to the school prom
juin was sent home for wearing unisex females clothing

the only other issue was the issue with a same sex partner

two out of three ain't bad... is it falcon ??? 7 pages in the thread and you are still telling me I am wrong for looking at a aspect of the issue with constance and juin....

you have stated that you do not see the infringements of constances rights to wear a tux, as a issue.....
other posters clearly do.....

I am being told that I am not seeing the real issues in the thread ( tho other posters are refering to them ) and I have you telling me that a infringement of a persons freedom of expression is not really a issue in your eyes ????

roflmao falcon.... does that mean the other posters are wrong for addressing that infringement of constances and juins rights... or just me... ?

[Long Duck Dong]

obviously because in new zealand it is forbidden to discipline bullies. the GLBT people there must be cowed (as in frightened with threats, violence, etc. or the possibility of such) by the bullies and the bullying government into a stance of non-action. that seems quite evident from things you, yourself, have posted.



sounds like he was frightened also.



so what you are saying is that if he had fought for his rights, he would have suffered punishment and ruin from the powers that be there in new zealand.



just how easy do you think a person's life is when they are forbidden to be themselves and constantly living with the possiblity of being ruined, attacked or even killed if they try to be themselves?



yes, it can. if they are suspended, expelled, beaten or killed by discriminating school boards, bullies and other hate-crime perpetrators.

sounds like you are trying to convince people that the way to be able to afford their transition is to cower before the oppressors. then once they have made the transition, they will technically be normal and thus have equality.



obviously, you don't have it in new zealand because GLBT people there are heavily oppressed. you talk about how new zealand has equal rights for everyone but then you bring up things which totally prove otherwise.



no one said that. you want to make it out like someone said that but you're either not being truthful or simply do not understand plain english.



you keep saying there are equal rights for everyone in new zealand but it is obvious from some things you have said in this thread that what new zealand really has is a policy of "you are equal only if you are a normal heterosexual male or female, pretend to be one, or technically become one by transitioning."



you are wrong about that and no, it has not.



no, i do not and i do not appreciate you saying that.

everyone has the right to speak their mind. no matter what anyone says in their posts, at no time have i ever said or implied anyone should "shut up". you're trying to make me out to be an oppressive bully in the eyes of others.

i'm not like you new zealanders who want to shut up those who speak up for their rights and/or the rights of their fellow human beings.



the school board did wrong. i'm sorry you are too blind to see that. don't blame me for putting a stick in both your eyes. you did that sucking up to your obviously discriminatory new zealand school boards and government.



i'm only trying to help you see reality. you choose not to see it tho.

neither has anything you have done changed anything for constance and juin.

*

*



that is a fitting term for it... "appeasement of bullies standard".

thank you, FalconAngel. :)

this one fits also... "ass-kissing those who can kick your ass."



yeah they are cowed.... they only have the hero parade, the queens on the quay parade, the boobs on bikes parades etc in the major centres... they even have a road in the main center of auckland ( known as K road ) and a number of bars and watering holes on that street.....equal rights, anti discrimination

also check out the gay, lesbian and trans members of parliament in nz and that run local area councils, ( Georgina Beyer was the world's first openly transsexual Member of Parliament, and from 27 November 1999 until 14 February 2007 was an MP for the Labour Party in New Zealand. ) and she is one of a number of them.....

we have civil unions ( equal rights LGBT hetero state of marriage )

so once again, nz has come out on top in a lot of areas.....

so maybe just maybe, we are doing something right..... and a exchange of ideas between the LGBT of both countries, would assist with getting things sorted out in both countries.....

its about time that you and the rest of the LGBT community in the us, got treated like you matter..... like you exist and like the proud americans you are.... but hell whats the point in saying that to you..... you clearly do not want to hear things like that..... so thats why i say it to marie and others.... cos they understand what I am saying....

but I will spell it out in simple terms....

in nz, you are a person that matters.... and has rights given to you !!!!!!!!! in the us, you fight for everything and fight and fight....
I have never been against you, like your government is.... you are the one that wants me against you.... and I have no issue with you at all.... I merely have a differing opinion to you over things

[*jeannie*]

yeah they are cowed....

some of your own statements definitely give that impression.


they only have the hero parade, the queens on the quay parade, the boobs on bikes parades etc in the major centres...

they even have a road in the main center of auckland ( known as K road ) and a number of bars and watering holes on that street.....equal rights, anti discrimination

also check out the gay, lesbian and trans members of parliament in nz and that run local area councils, ( Georgina Beyer was the world's first openly transsexual Member of Parliament, and from 27 November 1999 until 14 February 2007 was an MP for the Labour Party in New Zealand. ) and she is one of a number of them.....

we have civil unions ( equal rights LGBT hetero state of marriage )

that may be true but you have posted numerous statements about how things are in New Zealand that give the clear impression that GLBT people are discriminated against and oppressed while bullies are encouraged.


so maybe just maybe, we are doing something right.....

you stated in one of your posts (#179) in this thread...

"you have to remember that I have stated yet again, in this thread, that NZ got it wrong with equal rights and anti discrimination and it needs to be reviewed urgently.... another thing I have mentioned in this thread"

you go on to state 3 "paragraphs" later (also in post #179)...

"in NZ, they are committing suicide because of the equal rights, anti discrimination and privacy laws that were created to protect them..."

yeah, it really sounds like New Zealand got it right. (sarcasm should be evident)


and a exchange of ideas between the LGBT of both countries, would assist with getting things sorted out in both countries.....

no thanks. we do not want to fall victim to the same brainwashing you New Zealand GLBT people have apparently fallen victim to (or are you the only one?). and, being brainwashed, you New Zealand GLBT people would never accept any of our ideas as you have already been programmed to believe they are wrong and futile.

you seem to exhibit signs of Stockholm Syndrome as you clearly have grown attached to, and now support, your own victimizers.


its about time that you and the rest of the LGBT community in the us, got treated like you matter..... like you exist and like the proud americans you are.... but hell whats the point in saying that to you..... you clearly do not want to hear things like that..... so thats why i say it to marie and others.... cos they understand what I am saying....

we are fighting for that here. don't pretend to care about us or our cause because it's obvious you don't.


in nz, you are a person that matters.... and has rights given to you !!!!!!!!! in the us, you fight for everything and fight and fight....

as i recall, you stated that New Zealand GLBT people had to fight for their rights too. i'm sure for them it was also "fight and fight". tho, from the sound of it, they fought but got nothing.


I have never been against you, like your government is....

you support inequality for GLBT people so you are against me since i am one of those GLBT people.


you are the one that wants me against you....

you are wrong.


and I have no issue with you at all....

probably not with me personally but you do with GLBT people in general.


I merely have a differing opinion to you over things

you have the right to your own opinion. however, your opinion in this matter is contradictory and senseless.

[Long Duck Dong]

looks at jeannie ... ROFLMAO.....

[*jeannie*]

looks at jeannie ... ROFLMAO.....

you have no way to rebut me on those points?

[TwylaTwobits]

Okay Jeannie, you got personal, way personal. Why should he play that game with you? He's a bi man, he lives in a country that has fought for rights for all people. He has the right to marry me, a straight woman. He has the right to be open about his life. Reading your profile, yeah I'm getting personal, you don't. Are you jealous?

[Long Duck Dong]

you have no way to rebut me on those points?

I already have, read my reply in maries petition thread..... thats rebuttal enuf...
you can have a go at me, but I am adding my voice and the voice of others in nz, to the voice of the trans in the us...how many voices are your helping to add to the cause of the trans in the us, including you ???

[*jeannie*]

Why should he play that game with you?

if anyone is playing a game, it is him.


Reading your profile, yeah I'm getting personal, you don't. Are you jealous?

nope. not in the least bit.

i see you are another brainwashed New Zealander to be supporting him and the fantastical equal rights he claims New Zealanders have. you know, the same rights he also claims have drove people they were meant to help to committing suicide.

[TwylaTwobits]

if anyone is playing a game, it is him.



nope. not in the least bit.

i see you are another brainwashed New Zealander to be supporting him and the fantastical equal rights he claims New Zealanders have. you know, the same rights he also claims have drove people they were meant to help to committing suicide.

Think again, chickie.... born and bred right here in the USA.. Child of two still married parents and proud holder of medals regarding speeches on the Constitution. I am proud of my rights, but I don't have as many rights as LDD has, someday when I get back to NZ and marry him, I will have a few. But not all cause I'm not a Kiwi. Obviously you don't read many posts on here that aren't controversial. Hell I just started a thread today about where I come from and what my home town is like. So please....call someone brainwashed all you want. Then go take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if what you want to see is really what you want to see.

The reason my profile still states Australia/New Zealand is that I changed it when I was there. Until other kiwis edited their profiles it was a quick way to see if my babe had been on so I left it. Now I leave it cause it's where my heart is. Side note...it's also why some of the trolls can say they are from anywhere but where the last troll was and think they can get away with it. Drew can check my ip, it will show that until June 22nd of 2009 I was posting in Kentucky, then from June to Sept 29th, I was posting on same IP as LDD. After I got back home and got things connected it was November 2009 and IP right back in Kentucky same as previous

[Long Duck Dong]

BiCDu4

I guess you have never cursed a work mate or a person at school and continued to stay at your job or at school ????

lil hint dude, I never judge the rest of the human race by the actions or words of one person.... even tho we are all part of the human race......

you and jeannie can act however you want, I am giving my support to marie and her petition.... and working to get the word out to the rest of nz's lgbt community cos thats could add a few 10's of thousands more to maries cause....

how many names have you been able to add to it....

[*jeannie*]

I already have, read my reply in maries petition thread..... thats rebuttal enuf...

no thanks. it will just be more of your contradictory and senseless rambling.

since you do know realize it, i must point out that this is not the petition thread.


you can have a go at me,

no one is having a go at you.


but I am adding my voice and the voice of others in nz, to the voice of the trans in the us...

well, considering how it screwed up New Zealand (gathered from your own posts, mind you), we would wisely decline your voice and those of other New Zealanders such as yourself.

the reason we should decline is because, gathered from some of your own statements in this thread, it helped screw up equal rights and anti-discrimination laws in New Zealand. either that, or it's because you talk like a sock puppet for fascists. i'm not sure yet.


how many voices are your helping to add to the cause of the trans in the us, including you ???

i am helping to add a lot and, at least here in the US, our voices are not those forced upon us by our schools and government.

*

*


Think again, chickie.... born and bred right here in the USA.. Child of two still married parents and proud holder of medals regarding speeches on the Constitution.

*adds a bozo button to your distinguished collection*


I am proud of my rights, but I don't have as many rights as LDD has, someday when I get back to NZ and marry him, I will have a few. But not all cause I'm not a Kiwi.

so much for New Zealand's "equality for all".


Obviously you don't read many posts on here that aren't controversial. Hell I just started a thread today about where I come from and what my home town is like.

i'm sure everyone was dying for you to start a self-flaunting thread.


So please....call someone brainwashed all you want. Then go take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if what you want to see is really what you want to see.

i'm at peace with myself.


The reason my profile still states Australia/New Zealand is that I changed it when I was there. Until other kiwis edited their profiles it was a quick way to see if my babe had been on so I left it. Now I leave it cause it's where my heart is.

you may as well consider yourself a New Zealander as you have obviously been indoctrinated.

-

you are only supporting him because you have feelings, however misguided, for him.

*

*


lil hint dude, I never judge the rest of the human race by the actions or words of one person....

if that was true, you never would have made such a statement as, "stop associating yourself with CD"s and trans people, cos with your attitude you are giving other CD and trans a very bad look".


you and jeannie can act however you want, I am giving my support to marie and her petition....

i am happy you are supporting the petition. again, since you do not realize it, i must point out that this is not the petition thread.


and working to get the word out to the rest of nz's lgbt community cos thats could add a few 10's of thousands more to maries cause....

how many names have you been able to add to it....

notice how he seems to think he is a greater help to our cause than others. how impressive you are in your arrogance.

**

[Long Duck Dong]

jeannie..... again, roflmao.......

[FalconAngel]

in post 60 you make this statement


contance was not allowed to wear a tux to the school prom
juin was sent home for wearing unisex females clothing

You are the one obsessed with the dress code, bringing it up over and over; even after everyone, but you, had agreed that the issue was her sexuality and desire to bring her same sex date. You continued to bring it up even after the the official word from the school board made it clear that the issue had nothing to do with the dress code.

Every response in regard to your insistence on the dress code being the issue has been addressed, over and over again and no one agrees with you that it is even relevant, let alone an issue at all in this case.

YOU are the ONLY ONE insisting that it has any relevance at all.

You are still using creationist type tactics and arguments. Grow up and address the real issue for a change.


the only other issue was the issue with a same sex partner

Since you ignore everything else on this, I am surprised that you have FINALLY noticed that this was the issue at all.

But, as usual, you have it wrong again.

This is the only issue.
The dress code is insignificant. The only rights that are a concern is her right to be treated to the SAME rights, respect and courtesy that all of the straight students are given without issue.

If you are too stupid to see that fact, then it is you, that is the problem here, not the rest of us.


two out of three ain't bad... is it falcon ??? 7 pages in the thread and you are still telling me I am wrong for looking at a aspect of the issue with constance and juin....

No, it isn't bad at all, but you are zero for three; so you can't even claim 2 out of 3.

In my case, on this issue, I, and others, are 3 for 3. Still doing better than you by a long stretch.



you have stated that you do not see the infringements of constances rights to wear a tux, as a issue.....
other posters clearly do.....

No. No one has made an issue of the dress code, except you. We realize that the tux issue is not significant; so why are you holding onto it like a pitbull? You clearly are not bright enough to know when to quit, to know when you have been served, so why keep trying to turn everyone's words around?

It hasn't worked yet, so it won't work ever. Not here.



I am being told that I am not seeing the real issues in the thread ( tho other posters are refering to them ) and I have you telling me that a infringement of a persons freedom of expression is not really a issue in your eyes ????

No. Again, you are using a variation on quote-mining by re-interpreting my statements in such a way as to use them against me. That is a terribly ineffective argument.

I said that the dress code was insignificant in this issue. I never said that she didn't have freedom of expression. Arguing the dress code non-issue as an infringement of her rights is just a piss poor attempt at winning when your fight is lost.

Again, the dress code is a very real non-issue in this discussion, since it was NOT the basis for the school board's action. The two are unrelated.


roflmao falcon.... does that mean the other posters are wrong for addressing that infringement of constances and juins rights... or just me... ?

Just you, because you do not realize the ignorance of your own statements. You have, very clearly, demonstrated you ignorance of the issue and of American civil rights laws and how American civil rights work.

You have repeatedly tried to win your arguments by misdirection away from the real issue to something that is not really an issue. That is the kind of thing you hear from folks trying to hide from the truth.

We have focused on the issue of her civil rights; her right to be involved in the same school functions as her classmates with the same rights and obligations as her other classmates, without regard to her sexuality.
You, on the other hand have focused on the non-issue of the dress code, appeasement to the majority and issues that have little or nothing to do with this issue.

On the appeasement issue, the British tried that in the late 1930's; it just made WWII worse for everyone. You belief in appeasement is not only misguided, but rife with problems for those that do the appeasing.

You have an indefensible position. You have shown it and too many of us have called you on your failed arguments and piss poor tactics.

You have lost. Man up and accept it.

[*jeannie*]

ah, laughter... the stalling tactic of a man running out of BS.

*

[Long Duck Dong]

the dress code is exhibit C in constances court case, if its good enuf for the court to consider it relevant, but not you, falcon, thats not my problem

[Long Duck Dong]

jeannie..... roflmao.....

[*jeannie*]

the dress code is exhibit C in constances court case, if its good enuf for the court to consider it relevant, but not you, falcon, thats not my problem

it may be exhibit 'C' in the court case but no here is hung up on it except you.

oh and... keep laughing. it only proves my point.

*

[Long Duck Dong]

You have lost. Man up and accept it.

I need you to clarify this for me please, if you do not mind.... but how do you win or lose a thread topic.....

what are the rules and terms of engagement... do you surrender, post a white flag, sign a armistice

you see, I am not big on the rules of engagement, nz, is not a country that is big on wars, either starting them or losing them..... so in nz we do not have the terms of engagement for winning or losing thread topics....

in nz, we agree to disagree, and compromise on the fact that people do not see eye to eye..... so I am guessing that the need to win thread topics is a us trait......

and no I am not being sarcastic at all..... I am bloody serious.... how do you win or lose something that can not be won or lost.....

could you post a website or something with the terms and conditions of the rules of engagement in thread topics....

[FalconAngel]

the dress code is exhibit C in constances court case, if its good enuf for the court to consider it relevant, but not you, falcon, thats not my problem

But when you bring it up, then defending the statement IS your responsibility to either concede that you are wrong, or be able to defend.

You have neither taken responsibility for your lack of understanding of American laws and legal procedures, or been able to adequately defend your ignorant statements.

Were you aware that, in American legal proceedings, Each side will pile on as much as they can in the hopes of getting the truly important things handled justly or at least in their favor?

No, you didn't; once again showing your ignorant ethnocentricity as regards American laws.

Of course they threw it in there. The more that they ask for, the more of what they want are likely to be granted.

It must work differently in NZ, but this is how it works here in the US. Stop using the NZ standard to a system that you neither know nor understand.

[FalconAngel]

I need you to clarify this for me please, if you do not mind.... but how do you win or lose a thread topic.....

what are the rules and terms of engagement... do you surrender, post a white flag, sign a armistice

you see, I am not big on the rules of engagement, nz, is not a country that is big on wars, either starting them or losing them..... so in nz we do not have the terms of engagement for winning or losing thread topics....

in nz, we agree to disagree, and compromise on the fact that people do not see eye to eye..... so I am guessing that the need to win thread topics is a us trait......

and no I am not being sarcastic at all..... I am bloody serious.... how do you win or lose something that can not be won or lost.....

could you post a website or something with the terms and conditions of the rules of engagement in thread topics....

I will make this as simple as possible for you, so that you have a small chance of understanding;

You made arguments for a position that you had to defend.

You failed to defend your position with any statements that were relevant to the issue at hand.

Others made statements and produced facts to demonstrate you ineptness to defend your position.

In this debate. YOU LOST. Man up to it for a change. Show us that you are more than a pathetic, ethnocentric dope that thinks that the way things are done in your country are the only way that they are done elsewhere.

That would be a nice change of pace for you.

[Long Duck Dong]

But when you bring it up, then defending the statement IS your responsibility to either concede that you are wrong, or be able to defend.

You have neither taken responsibility for your lack of understanding of American laws and legal procedures, or been able to adequately defend your ignorant statements.

Were you aware that, in American legal proceedings, Each side will pile on as much as they can in the hopes of getting the truly important things handled justly or at least in their favor?

No, you didn't; once again showing your ignorant ethnocentricity as regards American laws.

Of course they threw it in there. The more that they ask for, the more of what they want are likely to be granted.

It must work differently in NZ, but this is how it works here in the US. Stop using the NZ standard to a system that you neither know nor understand.

jeannie posted the first post, and that referred to the issue with the tux..... so jeannie brought it up with the first post..... not me

as for a lack of knowledge of us law.... I think the fact that I do not live in the us, should cover that issue, and the fact that I have asked marie a number of times for clarification on issues, as I know that marie will answer it in a clear manner
besides a country that makes rules that can be over turned by a law, then about 4-5 different courts in sequence ( forgive me for not knowing how many courts you have ) for different people, and can give different rulings on the same issues for different people, is a lil more confusing for me than a country like NZ that applies the law across the country for all ....

[Long Duck Dong]

I will make this as simple as possible for you, so that you have a small chance of understanding;

You made arguments for a position that you had to defend.

You failed to defend your position with any statements that were relevant to the issue at hand.

Others made statements and produced facts to demonstrate you ineptness to defend your position.

In this debate. YOU LOST. Man up to it for a change. Show us that you are more than a pathetic, ethnocentric dope that thinks that the way things are done in your country are the only way that they are done elsewhere.

That would be a nice change of pace for you.

I signed up for a debate ??? where... I never signed up for a debate.... it says thread, not debate....

by the way, I asked for the rules of engagement for a thread.... if I wanted the rules of engagement for a debate, I would have gone to the local toastmasters club ( debating club ) for the terms of engagement

thread is spelt differently to debate... and I never debate in threads, cos its futile.... but I love to watch the way that people feel the need to have to win at all costs.....
now I offered a number of differing opinions.... and thanks to marie, learnt a number of things..... that to me is a discussion.... not a debate, as it falls outside of the terms of *debate *

now, falcon, lets try again, what are the terms of engagement for winning and losing a thread topic, .... not a debate ( I was not debating, you have decided I was debating, so you could claim a lose / loss aspect ) btw, is winning that important to you, that you can not just agree to disagree ????

[*jeannie*]

in nz, we agree to disagree,

agreeing to disagree is the same as going back to square one. nothing is achieved.


and compromise on the fact that people do not see eye to eye.....

there must be a consensus or nothing will change.


so I am guessing that the need to win thread topics is a us trait......

you are exhibiting that need yourself. otherwise, you would have stopped trying to convince us and stepped out of this thread long ago.

i'm not hoping for you to leave this thread but why ARE you still here if not to win?


and no I am not being sarcastic at all..... I am bloody serious.... how do you win or lose something that can not be won or lost.....

for someone who believes in agreeing to disagree, you sure are fighting like hell to convince us of your points.

*

*


jeannie posted the first post, and that referred to the issue with the tux..... so jeannie brought it up with the first post..... not me

i started this thread with the statement, "This is ridiculous." and the url to the news article.

all of us, except for you, have gotten past the dress code thing a very long time ago.

*

*


I signed up for a debate ??? where... I never signed up for a debate.... it says thread, not debate....



thread is spelt differently to debate... and I never debate in threads, cos its futile....

debate: a discussion involving opposing viewpoints.


but I love to watch the way that people feel the need to have to win at all costs.....
now I offered a number of differing opinions.... and thanks to marie, learnt a number of things..... that to me is a discussion.... not a debate, as it falls outside of the terms of *debate *

again...

debate: a discussion involving opposing viewpoints.


now, falcon, lets try again, what are the terms of engagement for winning and losing a thread topic, .... not a debate ( I was not debating, you have decided I was debating, so you could claim a lose / loss aspect ) btw, is winning that important to you, that you can not just disagree to disagree ????

and again...

debate: a discussion involving opposing viewpoints.

you are most definitely debating. consult a dictionary sometime.

*

[Long Duck Dong]

now since I asked falcon for a link to a rules of engagement in threads website and he failed to deliever..... I will post a link to the rules of engagement that clearly prove I was not debating the issue, as my statements and posts were not within the rules of engagement
so falcon, you can arguing the fact that I was debating, but the terms of engagement for a debate, clearly prove that I was not debating..... you decided I was so you could * win * the unwinnable

debate rules of engagement (http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html)

[*jeannie*]

try this one since you obviously do not know the definition of the word "debate".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate

*

by the way, "debate rules and suggestions: advice for debating with others" is not the same as "definition of debate". duh.

*

[Long Duck Dong]

jeannie.... a dictionary defination is not rules of engagement....

you do not win a war with dictionary definations, you state the rules and terms of engagement......

using a dictionary defination could label this thread a debate, but the rules of engagement show that we were not debating.....

now the subject matter was not chosen by a neutral and unbiased person, the judges are on one team, I never agreed to a debate on any teams nor any terms of engagement and my statements have broken a number of debating rules, including taking opposing sides....

the ruling by the judges, who happen to be on one side of the * debate * is null and void, as it is a biased viewpoint, and shows clear favoritism in support of their fellow * debators *

btw I took debating at school, I know how to debate, but bisexual.com is not the time nor the place for debating, and so i don't... I just post and watch people turn into raving lunatics.....

if you and falcon would like a actual debate, since you both want to win something, it can be arranged, using neutral and unbiased judges, with a set topic ( based around the issues in the thread ) and terms of engagement that we all agree to....
that way I can deliberately lose for you and falcon, just to keep the peace.....

thats to say, I do not care about differing opinions in threads in a forum, it happens, its called the Internet.... and the only win / loss aspect I give a rats ass about, is the court case with constance.... as that court case, does decide a number of changes for the school and the students..... while this thread.... merely amuses me and stops me being bored....

[*jeannie*]

jeannie.... a dictionary defination is not rules of engagement....

i know that. you obviously do not.

you are the one claiming you never debate in threads but you have been debating beyond any doubt.


you do not win a war with dictionary definations, you state the rules and terms of engagement......

i won on this point. you claimed you do not debate in threads but i proved you are doing just that.


using a dictionary defination could label this thread a debate, but the rules of engagement show that we were not debating.....

no amount of insane BS you can mutter will help prove you right on that.

*

you have not been discussing? you have not been presenting opposing viewpoints? you are obviously off your chump.

*

the "Debate Rules and Suggestions: Advice on Debating with Others" is a list of suggestions to make for polite debating, not what debating IS.

*

[Long Duck Dong]

you proved it by what rules of engagement I never saw any...... or are they in your head.....

its a forum thread, I am posting in a thread, just cos you thinks its a debate in your head, does not mean I am debating.... I have already proven that by the rules of engagement in a debate, site link.... there was no way in hell I was debating

I actually perfer to use the term agree to disagree, but you have proven that for you, its win as all costs.... so to stop you getting your underpants in so much of a twist that you cut off the blood supply from your legs to your brain...I will say something

you and falcon and everybody else win... you win the thread topic, the debate, the arguement and what ever else you choose to call the thread.....

but, lol, I can pretty much bet, that you will not be happy with that, cos its not the win you are after.... it means nothing to you, what you want is me to shut the fuck up.......

so jeannie, what ya gonna do, ... refute that statement and prove me right, or not say a word and prove me wrong..... and I know you want me to be wrong, don't ya

[*jeannie*]

its a forum thread, I am posting in a thread, just cos you thinks its a debate in your head, does not mean I am debating...

according to the dictionary, you have been, and still are, debating.


I have already proven that by the rules of engagement in a debate, site link.... there was no way in hell I was debating

no, you provided a link to a webpage listing suggestions for polite debating. a list of SUGGESTIONS does not DEFINE a thing. you obviously do not have enough sense to realize the difference between DEFINITION and SUGGESTIONS.


you and falcon and everybody else win... you win the thread topic, the debate, the arguement and what ever else you choose to call the thread.....

you just don't get it.


but, lol, I can pretty much bet, that you will not be happy with that, cos its not the win you are after.... it means nothing to you, what you want is me to shut the fuck up.......

your logic here is irrefutably faulty. you are wrong about me wanting you to "shut the fuck up" as i fully support your right to freedom of speech.


so jeannie, what ya gonna do, ... refute that statement and prove me right, or not say a word and prove me wrong..... and I know you want me to be wrong, don't ya

the only way i could prove your statement right is to tell you to shut up which i do not want you to do, you moron.

by the way, your feeble attempt to use reverse psychology on me here has failed miserably.

*


now I have dysthimia which is a low level depressive disorder...

i would probably not be wrong for believing that the cause of your depression is because you cannot relate to reality to such a degree that it makes for great difficulties between you and others. i'm also probably not wrong for believing that you suffer from some degree of mental retardation as well.

i draw that conclusion based on the similarities between you and a guy i have known for many years now here in real life. he is mentally retarded and suffers from depression due to his inability to relate to others well. in fact, he acts exactly like you and, if i did not know any better, i would swear you are him.

*

[Long Duck Dong]

you are so determined to be right that you will make up things to suit your point of view

I made the smart ass remark about proving me right... cos I knew you would post going after me again.... it was not reverse psychology at all, it was me being a smart ass.... but if you want to be right on that aspect, go for it...

yeah definations, suggestions, the only people that are arguing the win / loss aspect, are people like you and falcon that have to win at all costs..... I do not even need to say that, you and falcon are proving it by yourselves, without my help....
thats why i asked if its some sort of us mentality thing, as I am a nz'er and I am posting in a forum, you are the one arguing that not, its not allowed to be posting, it has to be a debate so I can lose it....

btw, why are you so obsessed with me having to lose a forum thread,.... sorry, debate, when I am more interested in the outcome of constances courtcase.... as that is something of real importance.....

but once again, I do not understand this at all

we have a person telling me that I know fuck all about american law, but who also didn't know who the 3rd president of the usa was, and they live there.... and you who attacked my partner as a brainwashed nz'er that is actually a american citizen.....
what is the big deal ????? seriously..... what are you trying to accomplish ??? other than the fact that you both making fools out of yourselves, by trying to brow beat me and hammer my posts....

the issue can not be about constance and the court case, as I have changed the topic from that and you are still after me, like a doberman dog with a raging hard on trying to hump my leg.... and again, that proves that the issue is not about me being wrong in the thread, about things, but your issue with ME..... and lol I seriously suggest that you get over it.... cos I am not worth the effort, jeannie, I am just a name in a forum on the internet... and all you are doing is making a fool of yourself with your ongoing issues with me....

so a lil advice, accept your * win * laugh at me and move on.... I am not worth it.... and seriously, I am sitting here laughing and thinking about the reports that I have read about people that lose control over the internet and take everything too personally.... I guess that I underestimated things just a lil

[*jeannie*]

you are so determined to be right that you will make up things to suit your point of view

i made nothing up and everyone with sense knows that.


I made the smart ass remark about proving me right... cos I knew you would post going after me again....it was not reverse psychology at all, it was me being a smart ass.... but if you want to be right on that aspect, go for it...

give it up. you don't lie very well at all.


yeah definations, suggestions, the only people that are arguing the win / loss aspect, are people like you and falcon that have to win at all costs.....

that very statement makes you a participant in that argument. thus, you are also "arguing the win / loss aspect."


I do not even need to say that, you and falcon are proving it by yourselves, without my help....thats why i asked if its some sort of us mentality thing, as I am a nz'er and I am posting in a forum, you are the one arguing that not, its not allowed to be posting, it has to be a debate so I can lose it....

it is debating. the definition proves it.


btw, why are you so obsessed with me having to lose a forum thread,.... sorry, debate, when I am more interested in the outcome of constances courtcase.... as that is something of real importance.....

we know you are cheering for the school board.


but once again, I do not understand this at all

you are right there. you do not understand this at all.


we have a person telling me that I know fuck all about american law, but who also didn't know who the 3rd president of the usa was, and they live there....

FalconAngel knew who the 3rd president was and it was obvious to everyone, except you of course, that he had simply made a mistake.


and you who attacked my partner as a brainwashed nz'er that is actually a american citizen.....

she must be brainwashed with the same mind-cleansing agent you have been to be supporting you and your screwed up views.

mistaking her for a New Zealander was a mistake anyone could have made as she has herself listed as being in Australia/New Zealand.


what is the big deal ????? seriously..... what are you trying to accomplish ??? other than the fact that you both making fools out of yourselves, by trying to brow beat me and hammer my posts....

you, and those supporting you here, are the ones making fools of yourselves.

i'm not trying to brow beat anyone. as for your posts, you simply do not have the mental competence to understand and rationally debate the issues.


the issue can not be about constance and the court case, as I have changed the topic from that and you are still after me, like a doberman dog with a raging hard on trying to hump my leg....

keep your sexual fantasies out of this, sicko.


and again, that proves that the issue is not about me being wrong in the thread, about things, but your issue with ME.....

no, it doesn't.


and lol I seriously suggest that you get over it.... cos I am not worth the effort, jeannie, I am just a name in a forum on the internet... and all you are doing is making a fool of yourself with your ongoing issues with me....



so a lil advice, accept your * win * laugh at me and move on....

you still do not get it.


I am not worth it.... and seriously, I am sitting here laughing and thinking about the reports that I have read about people that lose control over the internet and take everything too personally.... I guess that I underestimated things just a lil

keep laughing, moron. it neither makes you smarter, wiser nor a winner.

*

by the way, you are so stupid that i just have to ask this...

did your school force you out after your 12th year of kindergarten or did you just drop out due to your well-deserved sense of failure?

*

[IanBorthwick]

I want to interject, and I fully expect to be flamed as it's happened most times I do...

Jeannie, you cannot argue away stupid. He's trying to "win" by outlasting your comments and Falcon's. Argue hard, point out where he's faulty and like a cult religion he's going to stick to his course and never alter because he can't. It's rather like having a child walk up to a HUGE mosaic and put their nose to the wall, then by staring hard at a piece at a time, work his way off the mosaic til he is staring at a stain next to the original art piece...and thus once there staring at the stain he claims he has seen the ONE true portion that tells him he is indeed, after all, looking at the best part of it all and sees more than those of us moving back and forth, to and fro to look at the entirety of the mosaic.

You can't argue away stupidity.

Now I do not want to say anyone IS stupid, but BEING stupid is different.

I've been here a long time and most of what I have seen him argue is always like this, it makes nothing better and he'll still be convinced of the superiority of his views. Wisdom is calling your own view into question to verify your own position to see whether it is strong or to be abandoned. In all these years I have not seen it change, it's not wavered once. Bulldogging it will not change it, so I implore you all to not let it get too out of hand. I am not defending anyone, just please don't let it get to you. If it's not, ignore my comment and proceed if you must. :(

[Long Duck Dong]

I am not that stupid that I would resort to uncalled for personal attacks on people and their partners...... or their relationships

if people want to argue their opinions are right and I am wrong, even tho I have openly agreed on a number of them, thats fine.... but the personal attacks I will not ignore or tolerate, and due to the nature of the implications about my partner and the nature of our relationship.... drew has been contacted, as the relationship are not part of this thread and should have been left right out of the thread

[rissababynta]

OK, I'm so not on LDD's side or anyone elses for this whole thread because truthfully, I just don't give a shit. However I just have to share that I am now laughing my ass off because I've sat here watching people tell him to drop dead, call him stupid, and now call him a moron all because he has his views and opinions and is trying to share them to people...but god forbid he tells someone that they made themselves LOOK like an ass...oh my fucking god THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!! For the love of God grab your children and run for shelter!


LMFAO I hope Constance never reads this thread.

[rissababynta]

On another note for BOTH sides of this bullshit...you can sit there and lay your opinions out on the table all you want but there comes a point where you realize that neither is going to listen or change their views and thoughts to understand what you are saying...that point was nailed a LONG time ago...usually it goes one of two ways...either people start getting frustrated and pissy and start name calling and insulting or they take the high road and just say "screw it." And yes, yes...I know that you say that's dumb because then there is no way to make a change...but WHY does a view point HAVE to change?

Let it GOOOOOoooo.

[*jeannie*]

I am not that stupid that I would resort to uncalled for personal attacks on people and their partners...... or their relationships

but the personal attacks I will not ignore or tolerate, and due to the nature of the implications about my partner and the nature of our relationship.... drew has been contacted, as the relationship are not part of this thread and should have been left right out of the thread

Long Duck Dong,

just to point out some things about you...

troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

troll: someone who repeatedly and deliberately breaches the netiquette of an established online community, posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages to bait or excite users into responding or to test the forum rules and policies, and with that the patience of the forum staff. Their provocative behavior may potentially start flame wars or other disturbances.

you defintely fit those definitions.

concern troll: a person who posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns".

you definitely fit that definition also.

you are also engaging in flame-baiting...

flame-baiting: posting to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.

The most popular motive is the desire for attention and for entertainment derived at the expense of others. In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering the forum users.

it was, and still is, your goal to provoke those who disagree with you into flaming so you can report them hoping to utilize Drew as a weapon to defeat the opposition.

you are obviously trolling and flame-baiting here and you have been reported to Drew for it.

*

[rissababynta]

Long Duck Dong,

just to point out some things about you...

troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

troll: someone who repeatedly and deliberately breaches the netiquette of an established online community, posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages to bait or excite users into responding or to test the forum rules and policies, and with that the patience of the forum staff. Their provocative behavior may potentially start flame wars or other disturbances.

you defintely fit those definitions.

concern troll: a person who posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns".

you definitely fit that definition also.

you are also engaging in flame-baiting...

flame-baiting: posting to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.

The most popular motive is the desire for attention and for entertainment derived at the expense of others. In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering the forum users.

it was, and still is, your goal to provoke those who disagree with you into flaming so you can report them hoping to utilize Drew as a weapon to defeat the opposition.

you are obviously trolling and flame-baiting here and you have been reported to Drew for it.

*

Like Drew is going to take that one seriously. LDD has been here for a long time with little complaints (up until a few recent threads). Drew focuses his energy on the real, vicious trolls, not crap like this.

[*jeannie*]

Like Drew is going to take that one seriously. LDD has been here for a long time with little complaints (up until a few recent threads). Drew focuses his energy on the real, vicious trolls, not crap like this.

being anywhere "for a long time with little complaints" does not somehow prove one is not guilty of a wrong-doing in a particular instance or instances.

Long Duck Dong has been trolling and flame-baiting. there is no way around that fact.

Drew is obligated to consider all reports without bias and i am sure he will do so in this case.

[darkeyes]

Long Duck Dong,

just to point out some things about you...

troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

troll: someone who repeatedly and deliberately breaches the netiquette of an established online community, posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages to bait or excite users into responding or to test the forum rules and policies, and with that the patience of the forum staff. Their provocative behavior may potentially start flame wars or other disturbances.

you defintely fit those definitions.

concern troll: a person who posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns".

you definitely fit that definition also.

you are also engaging in flame-baiting...

flame-baiting: posting to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.

The most popular motive is the desire for attention and for entertainment derived at the expense of others. In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering the forum users.

it was, and still is, your goal to provoke those who disagree with you into flaming so you can report them hoping to utilize Drew as a weapon to defeat the opposition.

you are obviously trolling and flame-baiting here and you have been reported to Drew for it.

*

Jeez.. wot petty childish cows sum peeps can b.. Duckie mite b an argumentative difficult ole bugga at times in an argument, but a Trollie? Don b daft.. suggest ya think gain, withdraw ya complaint and shutya cyber chops for a cuppla days...cept mayb 2 apologise 2 Duckie forya pettiness.. personally me thinks botha ya r as bad as totha.. cosa ya personal lil squabble this thread is now 150 posts 2 long an me knos jus who has been worst culprit...

[rissababynta]

being anywhere "for a long time with little complaints" does not somehow prove one is not guilty of a wrong-doing in a particular instance or instances.

Long Duck Dong has been trolling and flame-baiting. there is no way around that fact.

Drew is obligated to consider all reports without bias and i am sure he will do so in this case.

Well, lol, just don't hold your breath for a banning is all I'm saying. And Drew isn't obligated to do anything but run his site the way he wants. We don't pay here, he doesn't OWE anyone anything.

[rissababynta]

Jeez.. wot petty childish cows sum peeps can b.. Duckie mite b an argumentative difficult ole bugga at times in an argument, but a Trollie? Don b daft.. suggest ya think gain, withdraw ya complaint and shutya cyber chops for a cuppla days...cept mayb 2 apologise 2 Duckie forya pettiness.. personally me thinks botha ya r as bad as totha.. cosa ya personal lil squabble this thread is now 150 posts 2 long an me knos jus who has been worst culprit...

Fran...*smooches* lol.

[darkeyes]

Fran...*smooches* lol.

oooo..me will havta stick up for Duckie lil more if this is response me gets outa Ris..:bigrin:

[rissababynta]

oooo..me will havta stick up for Duckie lil more if this is response me gets outa Ris..:bigrin:

I don't care who you stick up for as long as you stick up for what you think is right luff

[FalconAngel]

now since I asked falcon for a link to a rules of engagement in threads website and he failed to deliever..... I will post a link to the rules of engagement that clearly prove I was not debating the issue, as my statements and posts were not within the rules of engagement
so falcon, you can arguing the fact that I was debating, but the terms of engagement for a debate, clearly prove that I was not debating..... you decided I was so you could * win * the unwinnable

debate rules of engagement (http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html)

You don't even have the common sense to realize what a jackass you are behaving like.

That is the real annoying part of dealing with you.

You argued a number of inconsequential points and insisted on defending the ludicrous idea of making concessions to a majority that wants to deny a person their rights to equal treatment.

Then, when your arguments failed you, you would change the argument to something else, usually falling back on your prior inconsequential arguments that you knew had nothing to do with the issue at hand or change the subject, altogether.

Are you a creationist by any chance? I ask because you argue like one.

[*jeannie*]

Well, lol, just don't hold your breath for a banning is all I'm saying. And Drew isn't obligated to do anything but run his site the way he wants. We don't pay here, he doesn't OWE anyone anything.

i think Drew will be fair and will consider both reports (LDD's and mine) without bias as there is no reason he would not.