Posted on 12/18/2002 6:23:47 AM PST by Lorenb420
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:10:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Thank you for the add'l information, HG.
Massey's friend was not a kindred friend, to have begun the bad situation with her ill chosen shout. I wonder if she's included in the lawsuit.
I have many emotions and thoughts about this case. After reading the add'l information, I can see where the so called friend put Ashly in an unpleasant situation, causing much distress and discomfort for Ashly and others.
I'll have to take more time to formulate my final comments on this.
Thank you again.
*IF* Ashly had made advances or blatant comments to girls in gym I'd consider it necessary to handle the situation quickly because it wouldn't be any different than having a boy doing the same in that circumstance. imo.
But it would seem that Ashly, as far as we know at this point, did *not* made suggestive comments to other girls...that her so called friend was unkind and hurtful enough to shout out Ashly was a lesbian. I dearly hope this gal is a friend no longer.
**Lastly, lets remember that she is only 15 and is having to deal with alot of conflicting emotions.**
...and let's further remember that the other 6-8th grade girls are young, impressionable, have conflicting emotions, as well.
Ashly is now 15 and this incident happened when she was 14. I'm assuming she's in high school at this time..so this happened last year or so. I have to wonder why she is just now seeking legal action. Further, I do hope her high school experience is beneficial to her as a student and that she chooses her friends ever so carefully.
Besides being irrelevant to the issue, it's speculation on your part. It could be a reason, but for all you know, changing rooms could be segregated by sex because people of similar sex feel more comfortable changing in front of each other. Why are bathrooms segregated by sex? Surely not because of any sexual context.
You can't seem to come to grips with the fact that this girl was punished for who she was, not what she did.
Go tell it to Oprah.
That's mighty white of you. A girl who did not a thing wrong was kicked out of a public school gym class. The hell with her. In your world, do only the rights of heterosexuals matter? You can punish homosexuals in whatever way you like because they're homosexuals?
I am dealing with what the resulting policy should be. The sum total of listening to you is as follows - heterosexual boys, rightly, are denied the potential of a "peep show" in their changing facilities. Lesbian girls on the other hand, are not. If you cannot see how this is unequal, then you have a problem - you go on about justice and treating people fairly. Think of it from that angle.
I'm begining to understand your calculus: you think the issue here is who gets what kind of treat, not whose rights were violated.
You're going around in circles. I've said to you many times why that segregation was done in the first place.
I'll employ a Roscoe trick here: citeless. Claim all you want, no proof.
You may want to pretend it has something to do with mere anatomy. The segregation of men and women's changing rooms has to do with the peep show element. You are basically saying that gays and lesbians are entitled to this "peep show element" that heterosexual men and women are denied. And you call yourself an advocate of "equality".
As I wrote above, I'm beginning to understand your calculus. You could care less about rights or justice; your interest is in maintaining a certain level of sexual purity in these situations.
After all, we're talking about touchy-feely southern California...I'm surprised they didn't bring in a special counselor for these girls. And knowing how teenage girls are wont to stick up for the underdog and the "oppressed", I'm surprised that at least most of the class didn't stick up for her. You know the sort of things they teach in school nowadays.
And you never know; it could be some liberal but misguided gym teacher who sought to protect this girl from further harrassment and just botched the whole thing up beyond all recognition.
But if you ask me what I would do? If I had been the gym teacher or the principle, and it turns out the other girls were really uncomfortable (we only know that the girl was told that the other girls were uncomfortable), I would have started by sitting down with all the girls in the class, first without, then with, the other girl in the same room, and heard what they had to say about it and got them to talk about it...and then I would have played it by ear depending on how that discussion went down.
Thank you for your thoughts in this post, w.
And why would that be, perhaps because of the peep show element? Got that?
Why are bathrooms segregated by sex? Surely not because of any sexual context.
One word: urinals.
That's mighty white of you. A girl who did not a thing wrong was kicked out of a public school gym class. The hell with her. In your world, do only the rights of heterosexuals matter?
Calm yourself. You made it very clear that you are only concerned with the rights of this girl, and not that of her classmates or her parents. I believe your words were to the effect that the other girls should just suck it up and carry on. Who cares what they think, right? They're only heterosexuals, and they have to be forced to overcome whatever discomfort they might feel, in spite of the fact that changing rooms are segregated due to peep show reasons. We cannot challenge the left wing, homosexual lobby orthodoxy on this either, right comrade?
You can punish homosexuals in whatever way you like because they're homosexuals?
You've got it backwards. You are trampling on the rights of the other girls and their parents by refusing to even take their viewpoint on board.
I'm begining to understand your calculus: you think the issue here is who gets what kind of treat, not whose rights were violated.
I'm pointing out the inconsistency in what you are saying. Why is it that lesbians are so much more trustworthy than heterosexual males to you?
I'll employ a Roscoe trick here: citeless. Claim all you want, no proof.
Your alternative suggestions are, to put it mildly, very weak.
As I wrote above, I'm beginning to understand your calculus. You could care less about rights or justice; your interest is in maintaining a certain level of sexual purity in these situations
No, my calculus is simple - if you are going to divide the sexes for good reasons regarding not turning a locker room into a "peep show", you ought to be consistent in that policy, not assuming some special saintliness on someone's part because they have an atypical sexuality.
Ivan
It could also be for reasons of modesty or for any one of a dozen reasons. Got that?
Calm yourself. You made it very clear that you are only concerned with the rights of this girl, and not that of her classmates or her parents.
How are the rights of any of the other girls being violated? How are the rights of the parents of any of the other girls being violated? They're being made to feel "uncomfortable"---not that we actually know through the story that they do feel uncomfortable, because the gym teacher made that assumption on her own.If none of the girls knew this one girl was a lesbian, nothing would be in play here. Are you suggesting the knowledge that someone is a lesbian under these circumstances violates someone's rights? If so, exactly what right? The right not to be made uncomfortable?
I believe your words were to the effect that the other girls should just suck it up and carry on. Who cares what they think, right? They're only heterosexuals, and they have to be forced to overcome whatever discomfort they might feel, in spite of the fact that changing rooms are segregated due to peep show reasons. We cannot challenge the left wing, homosexual lobby orthodoxy on this either, right comrade?
Yeah, right. Makes as much sense as your libertarian-statist groaner.
You've got it backwards. You are trampling on the rights of the other girls and their parents by refusing to even take their viewpoint on board.
I see. So somewhere in the Constitution it says something to this effect: The right of the people to feel secure in their surroundings, and comfortable around others, and not offended by any other person, organizations, or anything else, shall not be violated.
I'm pointing out the inconsistency in what you are saying. Why is it that lesbians are so much more trustworthy than heterosexual males to you?
Say what? I have no reason to believe a lesbian is more trustworthy than anyone else on the planet. What are you talking about?
No, my calculus is simple - if you are going to divide the sexes for good reasons regarding not turning a locker room into a "peep show", you ought to be consistent in that policy, not assuming some special saintliness on someone's part because they have an atypical sexuality.
So I guess your argument has nothing to do with the story in the thread at all, nor have you been arguing the points of the story with me on this thread.
And why would modesty be an element if the "peep show" issue wasn't at the heart of it? Come now, really.
How are the rights of any of the other girls being violated? How are the rights of the parents of any of the other girls being violated? They're being made to feel "uncomfortable"---not that we actually know through the story that they do feel uncomfortable, because the gym teacher made that assumption on her own.
You said earlier that the reason why people were segregated into men's and women's changing rooms was for reasons of "comfort". If that is your operating principle, then it should be respected and the girls consulted. If the operating principle is of not having a peep show, then that should be respected and the girls consulted. In any event, the girls should be consulted - rather than having some libertarian or bureaucrat ram it down their throats.
Yeah, right. Makes as much sense as your libertarian-statist groaner.
I am the one calling for consultation, not the one who is snootily making pronouncements from on high about what the majority of these girls must do without asking them or their parents.
I see. So somewhere in the Constitution it says something to this effect: The right of the people to feel secure in their surroundings, and comfortable around others, and not offended by any other person, organizations, or anything else, shall not be violated.
You are insisting that the lesbian be made comfortable and secure in her surroundings. Furthermore, earlier in this thread you insisted that the other girls were the ones who needed to grow up. Perhaps you never were a child, but in case you hadn't noticed, kids can be cruel in general - the slightest difference from the norm can be the grounds for teasing. A kid who wears glasses can be made very uncomfortable, called "four eyes" - but I don't see you saying that they are discriminating against the partially sighted and the teasers should be forced to stop.
Worse, you demand also that a societal norm - that when changing facilities are made available that they aren't potentially turned into some burlesque, be undone, but not in general, just for gays and lesbians.
Say what? I have no reason to believe a lesbian is more trustworthy than anyone else on the planet. What are you talking about?
You obviously feel that they can be trusted with the "peep show" element more than heterosexual boys can.
So I guess your argument has nothing to do with the story in the thread at all, nor have you been arguing the points of the story with me on this thread.
Yep, typical libertarian. A refusal to look facts in the face, a refusal to acknowledge that any critique is valid, and trying to alter facts and common sense to suit your purposes.
Ivan
Wrong. I'm insisting that the lesbian girl has as much right to attend a gym class as a straight girl does.
Furthermore, earlier in this thread you insisted that the other girls were the ones who needed to grow up.
They do. Life doesn't owe them, or you, or me, or anyone else for that matter a certain level of "comfort." So there's a lesbian girl among them---big deal---the world's not going to stop spinning about on its axis because of it, and it sounds like had one big-mouthed girl not even brought it up, nobody involved would've known there was a lesbian among them. As a matter of fact, when you get right down to it, I'd wager it's not the girls themselves who feel uncomfortable about having a lesbian in their dressing room, but the girls' parents who feel uncomfortable about having a lesbian among their daughters.You can squirm around all you want, but at the end of the day there's no denying the fact that you're advocating punishing a girl not because of what she did, but because of who she is.
Perhaps you never were a child, but in case you hadn't noticed, kids can be cruel in general - the slightest difference from the norm can be the grounds for teasing. A kid who wears glasses can be made very uncomfortable, called "four eyes" - but I don't see you saying that they are discriminating against the partially sighted and the teasers should be forced to stop.
Yeah? No kidding. But you've got it exactly bass-ackwards. You're sticking up for the "right" of the kids who'd be doing the teasing to dis-associate themselves from the kid they'd be teasing. You honestly don't see how your stance on this issue puts you fully on the side of the sensitivity gestapo---the group that insists that every politically uncorrect comment or joke about a member of a class of person whose "feelings" are protected is an actionable offense? The next time some gay group claims their feelings were hurt and that they were made to feel uncomfortable and less good about themselves because someone famous made a gay joke, are you going to rush in on the side of the glass-jawed gays?
Worse, you demand also that a societal norm - that when changing facilities are made available that they aren't potentially turned into some burlesque, be undone, but not in general, just for gays and lesbians.
Do you belong to a gym? Does that gym have separate changing facilities for straight males and homosexual males? If not, every time you changed clothes you performed in a "burlesque" show for any gay males who happened to be in there at the time.How does that make you feel? Violated?
Yep, typical libertarian. A refusal to look facts in the face, a refusal to acknowledge that any critique is valid, and trying to alter facts and common sense to suit your purposes.
A typical non-libertarian. A refusal to look at the facts of a case, a refusal to discuss what actually went on instead of what could have gone on, an insistence that hurt feelings equal a violation of someone's rights, and a strong desire to steer the argument elsewhere.
Wrong. You're insisting she uses the same changing facilities as the other girls, regardless of their opinion.
They do. Life doesn't owe them, or you, or me, or anyone else for that matter a certain level of "comfort."
It doesn't owe the lesbian girl any level of comfort either. She made a choice to come out of the closet. There may be consequences with that choice regarding her changing facilities. Rather than accept those consequences, she is running to nanny government to protect her. And you, as a libertarian, are defending this course of action.
You can squirm around all you want, but at the end of the day there's no denying the fact that you're advocating punishing a girl not because of what she did, but because of who she is.
Not at all. I proposed a reasonable standard regarding the changing facilities. Since these facilities are segregated on the basis of "comfort" anyway, surely it is sensible to ask those who use them what they are comfortable with anyway? Or if you don't accept that standard, surely the consistency of the standard of it not being a potential peep show should be maintained.
If the girls feel otherwise, that's fine - all along, I've been arguing, ASK THEM. All along you've been demanding that your standard be shoved down their throats.
You honestly don't see how your stance on this issue puts you fully on the side of the sensitivity gestapo---the group that insists that every politically uncorrect comment or joke about a member of a class of person whose "feelings" are protected is an actionable offense?
No I don't. But then again, I'm not pandering to a special interest group in anything I've proposed.
Do you belong to a gym? Does that gym have separate changing facilities for straight males and homosexual males? If not, every time you changed clothes you performed in a "burlesque" show for any gay males who happened to be in there at the time.
There is a key difference here - for all I know, the other blokes in the locker room could all be straight, or could all be gay - there is no way to tell by looking. The equation is "Don't ask, don't tell" - what I don't know cannot make me wonder if I am being peeped at or not unless it is truly blatant. This girl did let it be known, and thus there are consequences associated with it - she opened the door to the possiblity that they are being peeped at, and thus, discomfort, and thus the whole reason for having a separate changing room in the first place, the prevention of a "peep show", is debased. I dare say if she had found a way not to answer the question, the discussion would be moot - it wouldn't have been a controversy whatsoever.
A typical non-libertarian. A refusal to look at the facts of a case, a refusal to discuss what actually went on instead of what could have gone on, an insistence that hurt feelings equal a violation of someone's rights, and a strong desire to steer the argument elsewhere.
My my, aren't we touchy. You still haven't explained why this lesbian has more right to use the girl's changing room than boys do, if the very principle of having separate changing rooms is the preservation of modesty.
Ivan
Wrong again. I'm insisting that the girl has as much right to attend a gym class as the straight girls do.
It doesn't owe the lesbian girl any level of comfort either. She made a choice to come out of the closet. There may be consequences with that choice regarding her changing facilities. Rather than accept those consequences, she is running to nanny government to protect her. And you, as a libertarian, are defending this course of action.
Wrong, and more proof you're not really interested in arguing about the story. The girl didn't make the choice to come out of the closet. Another girl in the locker room blurted it out before she had a chance to respond.The consequences of that girl's action were: the lesbian girl got kicked out of gym class because, according to no one but the gym teacher, the other girls might feel uncomfortable changing in front of her.
And yes, as one familiar with the concept of "rights," I'm defending someone's rights in this instance, not someone's "feelings" or "comfort level."
No I don't. But then again, I'm not pandering to a special interest group in anything I've proposed.
Who's pandering? Are you suggesting that defending a lesbian's rights necessarily means I'm pandering? This suggestion probably says more about what you really think than you'd care to admit.
There is a key difference here - for all I know, the other blokes in the locker room could all be straight, or could all be gay - there is no way to tell by looking. The equation is "Don't ask, don't tell" - what I don't know cannot make me wonder if I am being peeped at or not unless it is truly blatant. This girl did let it be known, and thus there are consequences associated with it - she opened the door to the possiblity that they are being peeped at, and thus, discomfort, and thus the whole reason for having a separate changing room in the first place, the prevention of a "peep show", is debased. I dare say if she had found a way not to answer the question, the discussion would be moot - it wouldn't have been a controversy whatsoever.
You didn't read the story, did you . . . "Don't ask, don't tell" was solidly in place in this instance up until some other girl outed her.But that's beside the point: you've stated there's a good chance you yourself have changed in front of homosexuals. Knowing that, have you been damaged? Have you been wronged? Have your rights been violated in any way?
My my, aren't we touchy. You still haven't explained why this lesbian has more right to use the girl's changing room than boys do, if the very principle of having separate changing rooms is the preservation of modesty.
Why haven't I? It probably has something to do with the fact that I never argued a lesbian has more right to use the girl's changing room than boys do. But that's just a guess.
Fine. If this girl is asked to change elsewhere, you won't throw a fit?
And yes, as one familiar with the concept of "rights," I'm defending someone's rights in this instance, not someone's "feelings" or "comfort level."
Until such time as they get asked to change elsewhere.
Who's pandering? Are you suggesting that defending a lesbian's rights necessarily means I'm pandering? This suggestion probably says more about what you really think than you'd care to admit.
Nice attempt to paint me as a homophobe. Won't work however.
You didn't read the story, did you . . . "Don't ask, don't tell" was solidly in place in this instance up until some other girl outed her.
She could have denied it and stayed in.
But that's beside the point: you've stated there's a good chance you yourself have changed in front of homosexuals. Knowing that, have you been damaged? Have you been wronged? Have your rights been violated in any way?
Sophistry. I already said, what I don't know in that case, doesn't even register with me.
Why haven't I? It probably has something to do with the fact that I never argued a lesbian has more right to use the girl's changing room than boys do. But that's just a guess.
That has been the consequence of what you are arguing. What you have been arguing, whether you are conscious of it or not - and this is the point where we argue: I don't disagree that this lesbian girl should be allowed to attend gym class or any other class. The changing rooms is the issue. You seem to be suggesting that using a different changing room, if the girls are uncomfortable with her being with them, is somehow hindering her ability to attend that class.
Ivan
Some common-ground solution could be found for everyone, yes.
Nice attempt to paint me as a homophobe. Won't work however.
I don't think you're a homophobe at all. I think you've adopted the "us vs. them" mentality, though.
Sophistry. I already said, what I don't know in that case, doesn't even register with me.
So there goes your claim that anything actionable on the part of the straight girls is going on here. Nobody's rights are being trampled . . . except for the lesbian girl's . . .
That has been the consequence of what you are arguing. What you have been arguing, whether you are conscious of it or not - and this is the point where we argue: I don't disagree that this lesbian girl should be allowed to attend gym class or any other class. The changing rooms is the issue. You seem to be suggesting that using a different changing room, if the girls are uncomfortable with her being with them, is somehow hindering her ability to attend that class.
No, what I've been arguing is two things: 1, the straight girls don't have a right to feel comfortable or un-offended. That's not a right, and I've countered the people on this thread who think the straight girls' rights have been violated in any way. 2: the only person whose rights were violated were the lesbian girl's, when the gym teacher summarily banished her from attending gym class because of who she was and how the other girls might feel. The school's a public accomodation.
The boys locker room of course.
EBUCK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.