Minority acceptance vs embracing (Gay/Bi/Xdress example)

[Architect]

Not looking for an answer but an interesting discussion. I know we have some gay, bi or cross dressing/trans gender folks here.

So my son is growing up and we signed him up for dance lessons. One of those things out of the 50's ... about 150 young people all dressed up taking dance lessons. As much introducing them to the opposite sex as to learning how to dance. The girls all wear dresses and white gloves with the boys in suits. They get a random partner, learn a few steps, then move on to the next partner. The hormones must be running pretty hot, just sitting on the edge us older parents can feel it.

At any rate the other time we saw a young adult, a girl maybe 14 or 15, who was dressed in a suit. Looked like a little stout banker and had her hair in a pony tail. Obviously she's gay, bi or otherwise a trans gender. We were impressed that she seemed so comfortable with it at that age. She played the male role and went around dancing with female partners.

Now this is formal dance - the male has one part and the female another. The male leads, has his hand on her upper side, and she rests her hand on his upper arm. How the dance moves go depends too, he spins her, and the way they end up is set also. The instructor explained it that it's the male's job to make the female feel comfortable. All very gallant.

At any rate, my wife thought it was pretty awesome this young woman could take the other side. I thought it was great she was so comfortable and aware of the situation, however I didn't think it was appropriate to do so in that class. My reasoning was that it was her forcing her sexuality onto the other young girls. Did they want to dance with her? Any way you look at it she was a minority, how far should the majority adapt and accept her predilections?

We thought that the least she should do is ask first, but even then there isn't much time to make a decision. The partners would just have a few moments to make a snap decision, I'd like some time to sort out my thoughts on the issue.

Of course it has a larger context. I think a lot about "Type Rights" - for example with INTP's. My family is all Sensor, how much should I demand they adapt to my predilections? In point of fact I demand acceptance, would appreciate understanding, but don't ask for them to embrace my preferences. I don't ask them to avoid small talk, go to Shakespeare plays and the like.

Is this young woman asking others to (literally) embrace her sexuality?

Discussion welcome ...

 

[Rook]

I do not think she must be obliged to ask first.

If others do not feel comfortable dancing with her, they should simply state so.
I think she is more than justified offering others the chance to embrace her sexuality, as long as she is not forcing them to do so.

If the majority would not adapt to her preferences, so be it, she offered to dance and they declined.
But for her to have to ask first is unjustified, a mutual understanding is needed.

If she wishes to dance like that, let her.
If others do not wish to dance with her, they don't have to.
Every individual has this right to express their freedom, to make choices based on what they want to do.

Though I see how this can be a problem in a more traditional setting, where one is not allowed to kick up a fuss due to the formal nature of the event.
Then, due to this mindset, the majority, or for that matter their parents, may protest.

 

[BrainVessel]

It's not like they're doing anything sexual, it's only dancing. They signed up to take a dance class, no? They didn't sign up to get paired off with the opposite sex.
If they're really uncomfortable with it, which I don't see a justifiable reason for them to be, then I'm sure they can opt out. No one should be forced to do anything.
Unless the girl is taking advantage of the opportunity and touching the other girls in unnecessary places, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[StevenM]

So, there was about 150 'dancers' there. That's a good portion of people. Considering that there is a whole range of sexual interests on a Kinsey Scale, you may be surprised how many people there that are at least predominantly hetero with a little bit of incident same-sex attraction (Kinsey Scale 1). I find it hard to believe that everyone there is only and exclusively hetero (Kinsey Scale 0), except for her.

Besides, it's a social outing that I think is more meant to be fun, and a means to explore and meet different people. One wild thing a person has to contend with when socializing in real life, is the variety of differing thoughts and perspectives from one's own. I think an event like that helps to 'broaden' a person's perspective of people, it's a good exercise to learn acceptance of different personalities and tastes.

I can see how it might have looked different, because the nature of the event seemed to put a strong distinction on gender roles. She came in and blurred the lines a bit. I like when people go against the herd, and be themselves, even in the face of criticism. It's admirable.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'd probably wait until someone complained. Until that point, it's not even an issue.

Also, this situation only exists because you're importing a particular model from (effectively) another culture:

So my son is growing up and we signed him up for dance lessons. One of those things out of the 50's ... about 150 young people all dressed up taking dance lessons. As much introducing them to the opposite sex as to learning how to dance

It's not the 1950's anymore. In the 50's, this would have raised a large stir and led to public humiliation and social repression. I suppose if people signed up with the expectations of this class being a nice little haven for people pining away for the 1950's again, maybe it'll cause issues; but in today's culture it's just a dance class, and you happen to be learning about a formalized dance routine that happened to reflect the times back then. (and to be honest? It's the adults, the older you go, having the huge issue with LGBT people nowadays. Your kids' generation? They're pretty cool on the matter, it's just diversity.)

As another point, the 'girl' is not actually breaking the gender divide the class has settled upon. She took the male role, dresses like a male, acts like the male; in all ways except the physical body under her clothes, she is assuming the male role prescribed by the class and behaving as such, even tying her hair back. I think she would be far more disruptive if she was dressing female in a dress but then not following the prescribed dance rules for females and trying instead to do the male roles.

I think the genderqueers freak a lot more people out than the folks who actually jump to the other box. People love their boxes. As long as you keep the box in some way, that's less in-your-face than those who create total ambiguity.

I also think girls get more flex than boys; if it was the boy twirling around in the dress while another boy led him around the room, I'd expect someone to lose their stuff. That should make us ask why there's a double-standard and what that says about our culture.

 

[Architect]

I'd probably wait until someone complained. Until that point, it's not even an issue.

Is it?

It's not the 1950's anymore.

Yeah but it's not relevant. It could be a mosh pit, or a mixer, or anything. The point is to secondarily learn dancing, but primarily to learn socialization.

As another point, the 'girl' is not actually breaking the gender divide the class has settled upon. She took the male role, dresses like a male, acts like the male; in all ways except the physical body under her clothes, she is assuming the male role prescribed by the class and behaving as such, even tying her hair back.

That's a good point. However, isn't that deceiving? Can't that lead to a "Crying Game" end situation (older movie where a cross dresser is so good at it a male doesn't realize she's not female, until things get serious). Is that fair to the other partner?

I think the genderqueers freak a lot more people out than the folks who actually jump to the other box. People love their boxes. As long as you keep the box in some way, that's less in-your-face than those who create total ambiguity.

That's fine but I don't want to debate people's predilections, but rather if the spectrum of Acceptance-Understanding-Embracement makes moral sense. And by acceptance I don't mean you have to like it (whatever it is). A person may dislike gay rights, equal rights, black rights, or whatever but as long as they accept it socially and legally then they're on a good moral platform.

 

[Jennywocky]

Is it?

In the practical sense.

People always bitch. Not all of them create problems. Sure, if you want to talk about "massive social unrest" and how this seething resentment can eventually result in a school shooting or mob, sure, I suppose; but I'm trying to keep things on topic here.

Yeah but it's not relevant. It could be a mosh pit, or a mixer, or anything. The point is to secondarily learn dancing, but primarily to learn socialization.

You're changing your example now. You originally said, "as much to learn socialization as to learn dancing." (50/50) Now apparently it's really to be socialized first, THEN dance? (75/25?)

If so, then just call it socialization class to reinforce gender roles from another time period. It's not really a dance class, dance is being used for something else.

That's a good point. However, isn't that deceiving? Can't that lead to a "Crying Game" end situation (older movie where a cross dresser is so good at it a male doesn't realize she's not female, until things get serious). Is that fair to the other partner?

How is she deceiving? You knew she was a girl. Apparently it's obvious she's a girl. It all seems pretty much in the open to me.

 

[Armature_Sally]

Interesting. I think that's really impressive (of her), and I think it's a great thing for the others to be exposed to, helping break down gender stereotypes and all that. It was probably eye-opening to most of the other kids: in the very least it would have made them think and hopefully question their preconceptions.

It's difficult though, because of the traditional nature of the event. I wonder if the kids or the parents were more bothered?

I think a lot about "Type Rights"

I don't think that she was demanding that much, really. There doesn't have to be anything sexual about a dance, people dance with friends all the time. All she was asking was to be acknowledged as an valid member of that social group. As long as there was nothing inappropriate or overtly intimate in her conduct, I think it was fine for her not to ask permission. Saying that, and noting BrainVessel did the same:

Unless the girl is taking advantage of the opportunity and touching the other girls in unnecessary places, there is nothing wrong with it.

I wish we didn't feel the need to clarify this. It should be assumed, and is as applicable to the boys as to her. There's nothing about her sexuality (or her conduct, from what I can gauge) that is overly forthcoming. It's weird that we feel the need to note that this would be inappropriate - it would be inappropriate in any case.

 

[crippli]

I would think taking dance lessons have different motivation for different people. For some the point would be to learn dancing, become as skilled as they can. And since it clearly is a difference on what is learned after how one is dressed. It seems natural to me that each participant decides them self what they wish to learn. For everyone, one dance role they will be better at. If they wish to become the best, they must pick the right role. For some it is natural to lead, for others to be led.

In my opinion every kid should be provided two outfits, one girl and one boy outfit. They need to choose before the first lesson, and then need to stick to this throughout the course.

The clue here are clear fair rules, in advance.

The main problem is unfairness. Most of these kids does not get to choose. Why is this one kid privileged? And most certainly is at an advantage compared to the rest who are forced in their role. And can not pick what they will be best at.

It goes without saying, that those who become best in learning the skill, get additional privileges. They always do.

 

[redbaron]

Obviously she's gay, bi or otherwise a trans gender.

I actually know women who are more comfortable in the role of male when it comes to dancing - who aren't gay, bi or trans. I'm sure if asked they would have no problem putting on a suit. I'll even don the dress and white gloves if women don't want to dance with them too - how is it even a problem if she dresses that way?

Of course it's acceptable for her to dress that way. Gender uniformity is so pointless and backwards. Really they should offer suits and dresses to every kid.

What's the difference between a girl in a suit, or someone with an ugly face? Is it fair to let the kid with an ugly face participate? Are we going too far in making the majority accept having to look at this ugly face while they dance?

 

[Architect]

You're changing your example now. You originally said, "as much to learn socialization as to learn dancing." (50/50) Now apparently it's really to be socialized first, THEN dance? (75/25?)

Sorry, misstated. I basically said what my SO thinks on one side (50%-50%) and what I think on the other (more about socialization). I'm not sure it matters though.

How is she deceiving? You knew she was a girl. Apparently it's obvious she's a girl. It all seems pretty much in the open to me.

I wasn't talking about her specifically, I thought you were talking in the abstract generalized case - "suppose a girl can look like a man so well that ...". Yes with her the pony tail and general features made it reasonably obvious.

I actually know women who are more comfortable in the role of male when it comes to dancing - who aren't gay, bi or trans.

Hm, "tomboy" we'd call them I guess. My SO identifies with that somewhat, she's never been a "girly girl" and gets along much better with gay women (her best friend - also an INTP - is one) than regular women.

What's the difference between a girl in a suit, or someone with an ugly face? Is it fair to let the kid with an ugly face participate? Are we going too far in making the majority accept having to look at this ugly face while they dance?

Actually my INFJ had a better stumper - what if she was black? Would we even notice, or object? As it happened there were only a couple blacks on the floor, just slightly less of a minority.

I don't have a good response to that yet, other than recognizing that the event is centered around sexuality at root. If there were no sexuality they wouldn't have it (it would be an aerobics class instead). Given that, 'alternate' sexualities seems to be more relevant than race.

 

[Jennywocky]

Sorry, misstated. I basically said what my SO thinks on one side (50%-50%) and what I think on the other (more about socialization). I'm not sure it matters though.

Why wouldn't it?

If it's advertised as socialization, then that's the priority.
If it's advertised as dance, then it shouldn't matter.

 

[Architect]

Why wouldn't it?

If it's advertised as socialization, then that's the priority.
If it's advertised as dance, then it shouldn't matter.

Well first there's the problem that it's whatever you want. It's advertised as both (unspecifically). I can tell you that most of the kids are there for socialization. Only a small handful go on to the next years class where they really learn to dance and join a team. But my INFJ argued the other side and thinks its about dance, so take your pick.

EDIT: I'll take your point though, if it's primarily about dance then gender would seem to matter less. However ... this instance is a "Ballroom Dance" class, where gender is important as I mentioned above (whether one happens to agree with the formalism or not).

 

[Rook]

If it's advertised as socialization, then that's the priority.
If it's advertised as dance, then it shouldn't matter.

It's classified as dance classes, and there are 150 participants, so I presume dancing takes centre stage.

 

[redbaron]

I'm having trouble comprehending how this is in any way a problem. Nothing can even go wrong in this situation.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well first there's the problem that it's whatever you want. It's advertised as both (unspecifically). I can tell you that most of the kids are there for socialization. Only a small handful go on to the next years class where they really learn to dance and join a team. But my INFJ argued the other side and thinks its about dance, so take your pick.

EDIT: I'll take your point though, if it's primarily about dance then gender would seem to matter less. However ... this instance is a "Ballroom Dance" class, where gender is important as I mentioned above (whether one happens to agree with the formalism or not).

Sigh. Again, we're just sitting here speculating (in the wonderful form of abstract conversationalists) about an issue that has not yet been raised as an issue.

Are someone's expectations being violated? Possibly... although people's expectations are violated on a daily basis. So how does something finally become labeled a problem?

It becomes an actual problem when someone actually complains to change something because they think it's a problem... whether it's the paying customers complaining and threatening to quit, or enrollment dropping because people just pull out their kids and the business itself elevates this into a problem. If someone is uncomfortable but ultimately decides it's not a problem enough to escalate into something that needs to be fixed, it's not really a meaningful problem.

This is why I'm saying, "It's not a problem yet."

... then again, I troubleshoot alot at work, which is what I'm actually doing right this moment (production issues). So my mental state is, "If it ain't reported, it's not actually broken enough to be a problem to waste energy solving." Lol.


... so I'm not even really looking at "ideal gender situation" or anything yet, but just as a potential problem yet undeclared as such.

If it would be raised as a problem, then the business would have to evaluate (1) what it promised, (2) whether the claims are fair ones, and (3) cost analysis of implementing a change, in terms of money as well as enrollment and any other concerns. We don't even have to deal with the gender issue per se (which is more a social issue), it's all cost-assessment and business impact at the moment.

 

[crippli]

I think Architect have a point. Clearly this is about much more then dressing up. So why is the girl allowed to dress as a boy? When non of the others are? I presume the dance course is imitating adult behavior, and this is the primary point, since there is a specific dress code.

Sort of like, what would it take for one woman in the background here to imitate the men. I think that is close to unthinkable. It would probably ruin the dance for everyone.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6E3vmumD0#t=15

In this dance I understand better what is meant with the sexuality and hormonal display mentioned. That isn't the reality for the kids. But I presume it's an unspoken aspect of the training to get into. And why grown ups experience reactions if the kids dont act as they are instructed.

 

[doncarlzone]

I think Architect have a point. Clearly this is about much more then dressing up. So why is the girl allowed to dress as a boy? When non of the others are? I presume the dance course is imitating adult behavior, and this is the primary point, since there is a specific dress code.

Sort of like, what would it take for one woman in the background here to imitate the men. I think that is close to unthinkable. It would probably ruin the dance for everyone.

Is that the point you think Architect is trying to make? That she is ruining the dance for everyone? Or was that unrelated point?

I would be curious to see if anyone is willing to explicitly argue that she should not be allowed to participate dressed up as boy.

 

[TBerg]

Just let anyone dress how they want to and refuse to dance with whomever they want to. You can criticize people for being ridiculous, but prescribing roles to people seems obnoxious. It could even be considered inorganically anti-conservative.

 

[crippli]

Is that the point you think Architect is trying to make? That she is ruining the dance for everyone? Or was that unrelated point?

Unrelated, and not a point. But yes. Since everyone is grouped into girls and boys, and I presume they use birth assignment, and not more complex sorting teqniques. + the dress and suit for each group. It would seem that there is a problem with the sorting method as one girl(I have to take Architects word that it is a girl) uses a suit. Wouldn't you agree?

I would be curious to see if anyone is willing to explicitly argue that she should not be allowed to participate dressed up as boy.

It is allowed. I think the concern was, if it is uncomfortable for the other dancers? It was morally just to do this? Sorta like if it is okay to stare at a person one like to have sex with. Or like it is in New York City for an attractive woman.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

Basically, is it okay to do what one want, when it is allowed by the law? Where goes the line? Is there a line?

 

[Hadoblado]

If her presence dressed as a gentleman counts as her forcing her sexuality on others then she must have everyone else's sexuality forced on her all the time. I would be more worried about the poor girl that is subject to this treatment almost every social moment of her life than the people in this class dealt a glancing blow of exposure.

Also, as RB said, at least from what you say, it's not entirely obvious that this is indicative of her sexuality.

 

[doncarlzone]

Unrelated, and not a point. But yes. Since everyone is grouped into girls and boys, and I presume they use birth assignment, and not more complex sorting teqniques. + the dress and suit for each group. It would seem that there is a problem with the sorting method as one girl(I have to take Architects word that it is a girl) uses a suit. Wouldn't you agree?

The dance consists of two roles and she performs one of them. She even dresses up as the intended role too. Unusual? Perhaps. Problematic? No.

It is allowed. I think the concern was, if it is uncomfortable for the other dancers? It was morally just to do this? Sorta like if it is okay to stare at a person one like to have sex with. Or like it is in New York City for an attractive woman.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

Basically, is it okay to do what one want, when it is allowed by the law? Where goes the line? Is there a line?

Ok well understood.
So in the above video, one could argue that she is being harassed by these men which could be worth condemning.

What, in the case of this girl, is worth condemning? If nothing. What line is she approaching? Suppose she is in in fact making the other kids uncomfortable - why would that be? And would that be a reason of concern on her part or theirs?

 

[crippli]

The dance consists of two roles and she performs one of them. She even dresses up as the intended role too. Unusual? Perhaps. Problematic? No.

As I wrote in my first post in this thread. Each kid should have gotten to choose the outfit. Why didn't they get to do that? A kid this age shouldn't have to fight illogical rules this age. Not healthy. So I would prefer to focus on the rest of the group, to put the pressure on them.

Ok well understood.
So in the above video, one could argue that she is being harassed by these men which could be worth condemning.

One can argue that they are being harassed? Filmed and put and made fun off on the net for expressing that they are impressed ? Or as you say, that she is being harassed? It seems to me there is a line? And it is going to be highly subjective.

What, in the case of this girl, is worth condemning? If nothing. What line is she approaching? Suppose she is in in fact making the other kids uncomfortable - why would that be? And would that be a reason of concern on her part or theirs?

Turn the situation around. One of the boys dressed as a girl. Boys tend to be less "bisexual" allegedly. Isn't it reasonable that the partner will get distracted and will perform less? Not get the good opposite sex attraction that is very attractive for kids this age? Is it what they signed up for? Intimacy with same sex? I presume this is in rural America where opposite sex attraction when growing up is a big deal? And same sex attraction is eeeew?

A reason of concern? teenagers get into trouble for slightly more explicit variants of this daily. Sometimes, someone can't handle it. For the victim it is irrelevant if they are in the right. So yes, if the others gets uncomfortable or over exited there could be consequences. As there is a life outside the dance lessons.

Simply put, it is not ideal with one mis conformist. There should have been more, for some reason it isn't. One can find out why the other kids are less playful. Although, this thread proves my point. All focus is on this one kid.
What about the parents? Did they support this, That would have improved the story.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBLv2hA1rok

 

[~~~]

What would happen if the males showed up in kilts? I would argue that from a hetro perspective, wrestling over the leadership in a dance can actually make the dance more interesting.

 

[redbaron]

I think it'd actually be awesome if there was no distinction between male and female and there were a bunch of guys in dresses and girls in suits. Like crippli I think that should just be how it is in the first place.

 

[Absurdity]

Anything that upsets the assumed social protocol will fray social trust within the group and make all interactions slightly more complicated. it's just a matter of seeing if the benefit from the upset outweighs the impact on social trust. Dance lessons for kids seem pretty inconsequential.

 

[Cherry Cola]

If anyone gets offended that person is touchy, it's not like they have to sleep with that girl just dance in a public setting. You can't have the right to be offended over everything.

 

[doncarlzone]

One can argue that they are being harassed? Filmed and put and made fun off on the net for expressing that they are impressed ? Or as you say, that she is being harassed? It seems to me there is a line? And it is going to be highly subjective.

Yes, hence I wrote one could argue this. In our example I had difficulties even getting passed this part. For me it is a non-issue.

Turn the situation around. One of the boys dressed as a girl. Boys tend to be less "bisexual" allegedly. Isn't it reasonable that the partner will get distracted and will perform less? Not get the good opposite sex attraction that is very attractive for kids this age? Is it what they signed up for? Intimacy with same sex? I presume this is in rural America where opposite sex attraction when growing up is a big deal? And same sex attraction is eeeew?

Interesting, for a moment I instinctively agreed with the first part. It always has an effect when you turn it around doesn't it? Should it? Anyway, I agree that in this other supposition, it could potentially be uncomfortable for some kids depending on their upbringing. But then again, so could be the case for a kid with racist parents, if he or she was to dance with a kid of different ethnic group. It is the uncomfortableness I'm interested in and I think substantial justification is needed in this case. Think about the amount of evil this sort of "instinct-based" uncomfortableness has caused in the past and is causing to this day.

A reason of concern? teenagers get into trouble for slightly more explicit variants of this daily. Sometimes, someone can't handle it. For the victim it is irrelevant if they are in the right. So yes, if the others gets uncomfortable or over exited there could be consequences. As there is a life outside the dance lessons.

Let's suppose again that we have a kid with a racist upbringing who is uncomfortable whenever dancing with a kid of another ethnic group. Is that kid's uncomfortableness then justified? Is that kid a victim? According to you it doesn't matter if the kid is in right or not.

Simply put, it is not ideal with one mis conformist. There should have been more, for some reason it isn't. One can find out why the other kids are less playful. Although, this thread proves my point. All focus is on this one kid.
What about the parents? Did they support this, That would have improved the story.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBLv2hA1rok

What I would consider ideal would be if none of the kids or parents saw this as an issue and as such the girl didn't feel a hint of discrimination.

How many "mis conformist" would you say is required for the mis conformists to be justified in being just that?

 

[Cherry Cola]

gay/bi/trans people are made uncomfortable by straight cisgendered scum all the time, they have to cate to their norms constantly. I think that for all they have to do on their part the rest of the world doesn't have to strut around their sexuality and/or gender identity as if it was contagious.

Wanna betcha that those girls don't really care so much about dancing with a lesbian? They are probably used to that kind of attention from guys already. It's just guys who aren't used to being in that position -who secretly dread the sense of vulnerability they experience at the thought of being desired by another man- who project their own insecurity onto others. Really. This issue is so easy to get just get the fuck over on an individual level so I don't see any reason to defend the culture that keeps it one, you don't get to be offended because you had to dance with someone of the same gender, simple as that.

Also dislike that the OP says crossdressing/trans because those are not the same thing at all.

 

[crippli]

It always has an effect when you turn it around doesn't it? Should it?

I would think not. It should be the same.

Anyway, I agree that in this other supposition, it could potentially be uncomfortable for some kids depending on their upbringing. But then again, so could be the case for a kid with racist parents, if he or she was to dance with a kid of different ethnic group. It is the uncomfortableness I'm interested in and I think substantial justification is needed in this case. Think about the amount of evil this sort of "instinct-based" uncomfortableness has caused in the past and is causing to this day.

Etnicity sticks less deep then sex. So that is a milder difference. And should not be similar. But yes, that can also create comfortableness. However, if it was, it would have been mentioned by Architect. And it wasn't. If we assume there where various etnic groups, as it must have been with 150 people. Ethnicity was obviously not a cause for "a talkis". There was also not a sorting mechanism in place for ethnicity. So that issue they must have overcome and is now playing on the next level where it does not give cause for talk. Simply put, they got used to it...

Let's suppose again that we have a kid with a racist upbringing who is uncomfortable whenever dancing with a kid of another ethnic group. Is that kid's uncomfortableness then justified? Is that kid a victim?

Interesting. Maybe both? As is why, I repeat. And RB also agree to this. That every kid should get to pick their outfit. That will sidestep "the parents "sexism"". And pretty much cut the potential issues at it's root. If all kids where used to dress in whatever they felt like, then one can no longer "X-dress". This is however a fantasy that will never happen, simply because the majority prefer to separate at least on sex, and often times on ethnicity as well.

According to you it doesn't matter if the kid is in right or not..

I meant if the transgendered kid is abused by bullies, it's not going to help the kid that they are in the right with how they dressed. When one is being abused, the bully isn't going to stop because they are in the wrong.

What I would consider ideal would be if none of the kids or parents saw this as an issue and as such the girl didn't feel a hint of discrimination.

Agreed. An ideal fantasy.

How many "mis conformist" would you say is required for the mis conformists to be justified in being just that?

The number of transgendered in a group should be at least 5%, maybe higher. So at least 6 kids are not allowed to dance the role they wish to dance. This little group is definitely uncomfortable with the set up.

5-10 "X dancers" is large enough of a group that the rest will consider this "normal". And hence not be uncomfortable.

 

[crippli]

gay/bi/trans people are made uncomfortable by straight cisgendered scum all the time, they have to cate to their norms constantly. I think that for all they have to do on their part the rest of the world doesn't have to strut around their sexuality and/or gender identity as if it was contagious.

Wanna betcha that those girls don't really care so much about dancing with a lesbian? They are probably used to that kind of attention from guys already. It's just guys who aren't used to being in that position -who secretly dread the sense of vulnerability they experience at the thought of being desired by another man- who project their own insecurity onto others. Really. This issue is so easy to get just get the fuck over on an individual level so I don't see any reason to defend the culture that keeps it one, you don't get to be offended because you had to dance with someone of the same gender, simple as that.

Also dislike that the OP says crossdressing/trans because those are not the same thing at all.

Largly agree. But it is not easy to get over, for most. Why do parents tend to go into hysteria, depression and various other mental disorders when their child begins to "X-dress"? How many women are comfortable with their husbands wearing gowns to the ball? How many men thinks their buddy in the gown is still "the dude" all prettied up? Looking like virgin Mary with luscious lips and eyes that make all the butterflies in the tummy come alive?

Who would want minor acceptance, one want embracing, right?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I know it isn't easy, but to take Architects side is to cater to the culture that makes this a problem, sustaining it. People are gonna have to be a little bit uncomfortable for the greater good. Few here would want to halt technological advance because it makes some people feel like were going against nature, acting out God's role or whatever, but when it comes to cultural advance there's division. I don't understand why.

 

[Jennywocky]

Got a source for that 5% quote above?

Even by standard polling here in the US, gay people are only 2-4% of the population. I think the 5% is a remarkably high guess. All of which means there are less "official trans" kids within the group, although the issue still exists.

 

[Architect]

I know it isn't easy, but to take Architects side is to cater to the culture that makes this a problem, sustaining it. People are gonna have to be a little bit uncomfortable for the greater good. Few here would want to halt technological advance because it makes some people feel like were going against nature, acting out God's role or whatever, but when it comes to cultural advance there's division. I don't understand why.

To be clear I'm not sure I have a side. My knee-jerk reaction was that she is pushing her sexuality on others with an obvious different choice, but I'm not entirely sure of that.

But on your idea I don't think the examples equate. Technological progress continues, but it's not exactly forced on people. They're free to go live whatever lives they want without it. A better example might be if we were at a tech conference, and one religious person wants to participate, but instead of talking about technology will only talk Religion to people.

Now you might question whether the dance is explicitly heterosexual or not, I'd say it implicitly is, but it's not specified so you can disagree. The problem is however, that if they did specify it as hetero then it would be discriminatory. So here's the problem; you can't discriminate, so you're forced to not only accept but to embrace other ideas.*

* Taking the tech example, it does come up. At Google I/O last year they got a anti-tech protestor, who paid the > $1k admission (and got a ticket) to stand up and rant and rave during the keynote. Of course they got escorted out and not allowed back. Rather stupid ... but in that case because they were being disruptive nobody had a problem with them being shown the door. What if they were subversive, and simply went around proselytizing the evils of technology (it was some anti-growth robots-will-take-over-the-world nutcase). I know for a fact they would get shown the door. Google has little tolerance for those who don't play nice.

 

[redbaron]

Here's the problem: you can't discriminate, so you're forced to not only accept but to embrace other ideas.

How the fuck is that a problem?

It's only a problem if you're a person who holds discriminatory values or who actually wants to be discriminatory in the first place.

 

[crippli]

I know it isn't easy, but to take Architects side is to cater to the culture that makes this a problem, sustaining it. People are gonna have to be a little bit uncomfortable for the greater good. Few here would want to halt technological advance because it makes some people feel like were going against nature, acting out God's role or whatever, but when it comes to cultural advance there's division. I don't understand why.

I don't consider Architects side a problem. Architect think and reflect about the situation, and is open. In a way, Architect is in the shoes of the kid in this thread. If we force Architect around, why shouldn't the kid be forced around? I think compassion and understanding creates integration. And that is what will advance culture.

Got a source for that 5% quote above?

Even by standard polling here in the US, gay people are only 2-4% of the population. I think the 5% is a remarkably high guess. All of which means there are less "official trans" kids within the group, although the issue still exists.

My own guess. I've seen guess numbers over 10%. The dark numbers can not be figured out. I like to think it's quite common. The number was about both "official" and "non official" people.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@Crippli: Yeah I think Architect is perfectly sensible. But I maintain that taking the position that she shouldn't be allowed to do her thing does cater to the opinions of people who are wrong.

Meh, technology is practically forced upon most people you gotta go with it or you're gonna be left out. Sure you can live as a hermit or refuse to use a mobile phone and computer, but that means you are crippling yourself. You're expected to keep up in a sense. So why would we not expect people to keep up with cultural advances? I don't think this is very complex when we consider what ought to be, so why hesitate in taking the necessary steps? The fact that it's a traditional-hetero dance just makes it a good forum for progress. In other words I agree that it's an implicitly heterosexual practice, but I don't think that's relevant, why would it be? It's not like there is some law forcing them to accept this girl, they could tell her to wear a dress or gtfo, but why would you agree with them doing so? They would be wrong after all. There is no law forcing people to embrace technology either, but the people that don't do it are old or retarded, generally speaking, and they suffer negative consequences for it. I don't see the problem with conservative bigots suffering negative consequences for their conservatism either, if they become alienated and have their silly traditions ruined in favor of egalitarianism then that's completely fine with me. Oh no you are uncomfortable dancing with someone of your own sex? Grow up!

I also don't think your comparison is fair in the least. The religious person at the tech convent is going to be disruptive and can't participate in any meaningful way. This girl can participate and she's only disruptive if we define the purpose of this dancing to be the expression of heterosexuality. But why would we define it that way and not in a broader more flexible way?
The religious nut at the tech convent wastes everyone's time. The girl doesn't interupt or disrupt anything.

 

[doncarlzone]

I would think not. It should be the same.
Interesting. Maybe both? As is why, I repeat. And RB also agree to this. That every kid should get to pick their outfit. That will sidestep "the parents "sexism"". And pretty much cut the potential issues at it's root. If all kids where used to dress in whatever they felt like, then one can no longer "X-dress".

I think that sounds reasonable.

This is however a fantasy that will never happen, simply because the majority prefer to separate at least on sex, and often times on ethnicity as well.

Is it a fantasy that the kids could have a choice? Or is it that the kids should pick outfits at complete random? If the latter, then I disagree that it is a fantasy as in an ideal fantasy, but agree that it's problably an unlikely outcome.

Similarly, an ideal would not be to have 50% of the boys and 50% girls picking dolls over car toys - but rather that any kid who would like to play with dolls, get to play with dolls.

I meant if the transgendered kid is abused by bullies, it's not going to help the kid that they are in the right with how they dressed. When one is being abused, the bully isn't going to stop because they are in the wrong.

Agreed, the kid will still get bullied regardless. However, the cultural vales from which these bullies are born can and should be changed. Just look at how the Little Rock Nine bullies are looked upon with disgust in today's culture. No one would argue today that they should have picked another school to avoid making the white kids uncomfortable.

The number of transgendered in a group should be at least 5%, maybe higher. So at least 6 kids are not allowed to dance the role they wish to dance. This little group is definitely uncomfortable with the set up.

5-10 "X dancers" is large enough of a group that the rest will consider this "normal". And hence not be uncomfortable.

So is the premise that it has to feel normal to the other kids?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Largly agree. But it is not easy to get over, for most. Why do parents tend to go into hysteria, depression and various other mental disorders when their child begins to "X-dress"? How many women are comfortable with their husbands wearing gowns to the ball? How many men thinks their buddy in the gown is still "the dude" all prettied up? Looking like virgin Mary with luscious lips and eyes that make all the butterflies in the tummy come alive?

Who would want minor acceptance, one want embracing, right?

Meh true. But it's easy to get over being uncomfortable around queer people, it's just those nuts that think homosexuality is inherently wrong/a sin and that sort of stuff which can't get over their thoughts on the matter.

Thing is people can think whatever they want. It's not their thoughts that are the problem. They just need to behave. Then they'll learn to think later in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

This is why the large number of people who can see both sides of the coin need to stop being cowards and pick the right side.

 

[crippli]

Is it a fantasy that the kids could have a choice? Or is it that the kids should pick outfits at complete random? If the latter, then I disagree that it is a fantasy as in an ideal fantasy, but agree that it's problably an unlikely outcome.

Even if they where to pick at wish. What led up to this choice must also be taken into account. There are kids who get to live with a higher degree of sexual freedom. But they are not common. Much much less then the kids who must grow up in non preference. I have never seen it. But have read articles that such parents exist. Like the video I linked, where the father even goes one step furter and dresses up as well. I have not read about mothers who use suits in support if their daughter wishes to be a boy. And there is a problem here, as a man is not properly visually defined. How does one dress up like a man?

I do know that men started cutting their hair short due to the danger of longer hair in revolving machines. And this became fashion and a sign of masculinity. So parents cut the hair on their boy children on that ground. And somehow think it looks nice. While simultaneously thinking long hair on the sister looks nice. But it looks the same, it's all delusions.

Similarly, an ideal would not be to have 50% of the boys and 50% girls picking dolls over car toys - but rather that any kid who would like to play with dolls, get to play with dolls.

Well yes. But preferably all kids would want to play with lego instead of dolls.

Agreed, the kid will still get bullied regardless. However, the cultural vales from which these bullies are born can and should be changed. Just look at how the Little Rock Nine bullies are looked upon with disgust in today's culture. No one would argue today that they should have picked another school to avoid making the white kids uncomfortable.

I am not familiar with this. Ethnicity is different. It is not a foundation as sex is. One can make just as fine babies with different skin color. That is not the case with same sex. So there is a fundamental difference between sex and ethnicity that isn't as easily ignored.

So is the premise that it has to feel normal to the other kids?

The premise could be. That the majority of parents train their kids in sex specific roles. What follows then?

Meh true. But it's easy to get over being uncomfortable around queer people, it's just those nuts that think homosexuality is inherently wrong/a sin and that sort of stuff which can't get over their thoughts on the matter.

Thing is people can think whatever they want. It's not their thoughts that are the problem. They just need to behave. Then they'll learn to think later in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

This is why the large number of people who can see both sides of the coin need to stop being cowards and pick the right side.

I consider the main problem if society reverts back to active persecution of minorities. That can as easily happen. Sometimes not to bad, is good enough.

 

[Architect]

How the fuck is that a problem?

It's only a problem if you're a person who holds discriminatory values or who actually wants to be discriminatory in the first place.

Because there's a difference between discriminating and participating. I don't discriminate against gays, but I don't want to dance or date men.

 

[Kuu]

Woah, way to blow a non-issue out of proportion.

Clearly, it is Architect the adults who are pushing their gender roles onto the children by having them perform deliberately gender-segregated dances, and NOT the lone girl in a suit who is "forcing her sexuality" on the others. It's a goddamn waltz, not grinding ffs. Rook and Brainvessel over at the start pretty much said all that was necessary.

And the technological comparisons are both unnecessary and ridiculous. For one, I do think technological progress change is constantly forced upon people, and that a considerable part of it is damaging and caused by a misguided production-driven economy rather than a desire for social progress, and to go against it incurrs such a cost so that most people don't, until they are too old and become unable to keep up.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

This is why the large number of people who can see both sides of the coin need to stop being cowards and pick the right side.

Some have said it doesn't matter what you think but your actions are what matters. To some extent, this is true but to neglect attitude is to miss an important antecedent. If you take a 'vive la difference' attitude, it's celebratory in nature. If it's an attitude based on fear, then its oppressive. Attitude gives off vibes and because we are social, vibes such as anxiety, fear, light-heartedness etc...is contagious and infects society. We can (and do) indirectly take a stance and influence.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The way I see it there's a large group of people which are tolerant but wont stand up for tolerance by advocating it, people who get the arguments from the queer point of view but still hesitate because they feel instinctively uncomfortable and aren't willing to challenge their own feelings.

I put males who wont dance with other males into this category. Mind you I don't think anyone should ever be forced to dance with anyone, but in a situation which revolves around dancing you should understand that you're just being a dick if you refuse to dance with people of the same sex, just do it, if it makes you a little uncomfortable the first time so what? It's nothing compared to what gay people have to do and go through.

I also have a feeling that girls don't mind dancing with each other regardless of sexuality because they are already used to being oggled by people they aren't in the least attracted to you, whereas for men that's not the case. Which is yet another reason why men should just get over themselves.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

CC, have you ever danced with a guy (assuming you're male) and really enjoyed it (meaning your body language and attitude was abandonment of care)? Now that would be courageous! But I get your drift and don't disagree.

I'm not sure what would be analogous for a female?? Anyone?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I have never danced with anyone and enjoyed it Xd

 

[Madoness]

I had a coworker whose son had clear signs of being into males, himself being mostly seen as a "role" of a female. Though I'm sure that the parents had no idea. They did try to force him being another person and he was not sharing his thoughts to them and they did not notice or understand theirs sons attractions. So he quit all the hobbies he was mostly put in by their parents (because he did not find them suitable for him), he quit school a little bit afterwards. He was left alone with his emotions and the parents had no idea what had happened. I guess, he was too scared to come out from the closet to their parents, and the parents put all the guilt on him for acting this way.

On the subject matter, I find it awesome that there are schools that liberal. One female "acting" out as a part of being male has no sexual matter in it, so I find it awkward that there would be people against that. Being attracted to opposite or same sex is not contagious and I do find it disturbing that many people see it so. Let her dance.

It is all part of our natural growing as a humanity, to dismiss aged understandings as the world progresses and we should adapt to them.

When I grew up, in the kinderkarten, I was forced to learn to eat with a right hand because it was seen wrong to eat with a left hand though I'm left handed. Though it was not that huge of a problem, the point still remains.

It does not take much to mess up a growing beings life. Being forced to ask from every other being if they are okay this or that way, when there is no other one to do the same, she would feel as an outcast to society and I do think this would have a domino effect on more serious matters in life.

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't consider Architects side a problem. Architect think and reflect about the situation, and is open. In a way, Architect is in the shoes of the kid in this thread. If we force Architect around, why shouldn't the kid be forced around? I think compassion and understanding creates integration. And that is what will advance culture.


My own guess. I've seen guess numbers over 10%. The dark numbers can not be figured out. I like to think it's quite common. The number was about both "official" and "non official" people.

My figures are based on actual surveys by the standard national survey groups in the US that are reliable, probably from 2011-2012. And it conforms to the survey results for a decade. (I'm on cell or I'd provide the links.)

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Is this young woman asking others to (literally) embrace her sexuality?

Some might take it as such but it doesn't have to be. The safest or conservative interpretation, it says SHE is embracing her sexuality. It's risky but a unilateral stance. How you, or others react to it is totally up to you and reflects who you are. Do you like what you see in the mirror of your reaction? That's the question we all have to ask of our selves (this wasn't pointed at you Architect, just a hypothetical question).

 

[Architect]

Woah, way to blow a non-issue out of proportion.

Actually you're the only one blowing it out of proportion by making that comment. I thought I had made it clear that nobody cared or noticed AFAIK, and that we (SO and I) thought it was pretty cool of her. But it led to a philosophical discussion which we didn't resolve, and I brought it here for more discussion.

Otherwise don't particularly agree with your position. Little girls generally want to be little girls, same with boys. I remember 30 years ago young women taking a Womans Lib class then claiming everybody forced roles on their kids, so its an old tired argument. We do have a friend who has a son that likes to cross dress. She's very religious - Catholic - but is supportive of her son who is obviously gay, bi or whatever. So at least in these circumstances I don't see any issues that you mention.