GenderBread Person

[Army of GOD]

This is the second best use of a cookie to describe a social issue right behind the use of thumbprint cookies for abortion

[Dukasaur]

What about serving penis cookies to your guests as a form of proposal?

[betiko]

What about serving penis cookies to your guests as a form of proposal?

Not classy! Penis shaped food is not something Martha Steward would recommend.

[Phatscotty]

re OP: does it matter?

Idk DK, does it matter? At least there must be a reason, eh?

We must give a reason why someone should be allowed to make their own mind up about how they see themselves as a person?

No, not at all.

The kind of 'reason' I asked about wasn't to do with individuals n their families dealing with the issue privately, the 'reason' I asked about is why schools are handing this out in classrooms, what is the reason for that. Why now, but not last year or any year before that?

I can 100% understand this being a counselor worksheet option for the 2-4% of children that it may apply to, but why to junior high students? (usually 6th-8th grade)

[Phatscotty]

I think there is a school in Nebraska requesting kids to not say boy or girl. They are supposed to say purple penguin instead. So does gender matter? Does this make children confused on their sex? Can I go and play women's volleyball or go into the showers with them? Does a persons sex matter.

Yes, boys can. They only need declare they are a girl to the teacher, principle, counselor. The best part, the teacher is not required to notify the parents, in some cases CAN NOT notify the parents. I've already shared a few news stories about exactly this happening in certain states, and South Park took it on to the T in what might be their second banned episode, the first being the Scientology episode. I think it was called 'The cissy' since, interestingly, the gender-name for 95% of people is 'cis-gender' I think perhaps that same post I shared the list today's 60 different gender choices. But maybe it was just the choice of the cable company or something.

I finally got my mom to agree towatch it, and in the cable menu episode 1,2,4,5,6,7 weer available, 3 was missing for some reason. Anyways, Cartman decided to become a girl because the boys toilets were always occupied.

Plot
Getting tired of the stalls in the boys' room being occupied, Eric Cartman puts a bow on his woolly hat and claims to be transgender – which he pronounces "transginger" – in order to use the girls' toilets at school. Principal Victoria is unimpressed, but Mr. Garrison advises her to give in to avoid the scandal Cartman is almost certain to cause. The girls however are disgusted at Cartman's presence in their toilets, so the school compromises by installing a very fancy transgender toilet in the janitor's room.

Meanwhile, following the previous episode "Gluten Free Ebola" in which Randy Marsh appeared to impersonate Lorde for the children's party, it is now revealed that Randy actually is Lorde, who does not otherwise exist. Randy is struggling to keep this secret from both his wife Sharon, who finds fishnet stockings in his jeans, and from a suspicious Spin magazine reporter named Brandon Carlile.

Wendy uses Cartman's private bathroom by claiming to be transgender herself, using the name "Wendyl". Cartman is furious at losing his private room and takes it out on Wendy's boyfriend Stan by saying dating her/him makes him gay. Stan, now confused, attempts to discuss gender identity with his father, but Randy misunderstands and instead reveals to Stan that he is Lorde. He explains that he started using the women's bathroom at work out of convenience, pretending to be a woman, but eventually found the bathroom to be conducive to creating music. He even shows Stan how he uses home studio software to make himself sound like a girl on a song called "Feeling Good on a Wednesday". This leaves Stan even more confused. At the Geological Survey, Randy/Lorde's boss proposes a separate bathroom to appease the other women at the office; however, Randy/Lorde says the bathroom is critical for his/her musical creations.

E! News reports that Lorde is abandoning music and Spin will reveal the singer's secret. Cartman teases Stan about his gender confusion issues, coining the insult "cissy", based on the term "cisgender". Sharon comforts Randy and indirectly encourages him to continue to express himself as Lorde. Randy completes another, more personal song. Enjoying the music, the female geologists decide to accept Randy's transgenderism and Brandon Carlile deletes his exposé on Lorde. The school decides to get rid of the transgender bathroom and allow anyone to use the bathroom with which they are most comfortable, thus foiling Cartman's plans. For those who are bothered by transgender people a new designation is made to keep them away from the normal people who do not care: cissy bathrooms. Forced by Butters to use that bathroom, Stan begins to appreciate it and sings a song similar to Lorde's.

Reception[edit]
The episode received a B+ from The A.V. Club's Eric Thurm.[1] IGN's contributor Max Nicholson gave the episode an 7.5 out of 10.[2]

Slate's Christin Scarlett Milloy lauded the episode's approach to transgender issues, noting, "when it comes to trans in mainstream media, it seems the tables have finally begun to turn".[3]

Lorde reacted positively towards the episode, posting praise for the themes and humor of the episode on her Instagram account.[4]

[Phatscotty]

Seems fine to me Scott, ~13 is about the age you know whats what, sure your hormones are making you make poor decisions, but that's kind of irrelevant here.

Most things "Sex" or biological are decided when we hit puberty, and that is what the Genderbread man is dealing with.

What was the problem with the birds n the bees, or whatever we had before this year?

[Phatscotty]

re OP: does it matter?

Idk DK, does it matter? At least there must be a reason, eh? Certainly this was never taught in a public school to all students before, so it's something brand new. Some might even call it radical. What do you think the reason is for the change in what is taught? ya know who would be perfect to ask that question? Some of the people who said this would never happen. They could tell us much better why they thought/said these kinds of things would have no place in public schools and that it was the parents place to handle such issues.

I already know most do not want to hear from those who said this is exactly what would happen...because they already said it and it was blown off and ignored as ridiculous. I suppose those who just a year ago said this would never happen will now take the blue pill and shrug 'so what?'

Shut up. You're a moron.

No. I'm a person who understood how all this would play out, as well as one of the only people brave enough to tackle the issue head on in a respectful way when most others were governed by emotions and checked by fear. I admit, I am a little bitter about being hounded for all these things, not to mention slandered and called every hateful name in the book. This is my vindication, not to mention with one of the slightly more respectable participants Grekko we agreed we could talk about it no more until these things happened, upon which I translated we can talk about them when it's too late to prevent all the 'will never happen's. And now the 'will never happens' are simply 'so what's. The only thing comparable i have been through in my life was on 'investing' chats and message boards and forums and blogs 2000ish They screamed at me, slandered me, banned me, laughed their asses off at the 'moron', they 'will never happened' the daylights outta me. GOLD WILL NEVER HIT $400 YOU MORON! They simply and completely could not grasp the concepts and fundamentals that the talking heads today spout regularly as 'common knowledge'. The history was not know to them or else not recognized as they obviously subscribed to the wrong version. Tell ya what though, every single one of them remembers me, and not as a moron. They remember me as 'The One Who Sees'.

My worthy/unworthy adversaries on this issue, who really didn't see any of this coming, I don't even think most of them are morons. They just don't know the things I know, and that doesn't make them stupid at all. In fact the main thing I wish they all take away from this whole fiasco is a learning experience. It can be at my expense totally and I'm fine with that. I don't want my country repeatedly getting rope-a-doped into 'We need Obamacare because 46 million people are uninsured!" 4 years later, a trillion borrowed and credit ratings downgraded, $2,500 hundred/year new taxes as opposed to saving 2,500/year on premiums....and 42 million Americans are uninsured. I'M SICK OF IT!

I've been around the block a few times now, and I was dragged around the block on this one. I think next time an issue is exploited and hijacked, the next time they don't tell us the whole story and only what we want to hear, some will be a bit more wise because they have now been around the block fully at least once.

[Phatscotty]

Even this genderbread person stereotypes. The last item reads "Sexual orientation is who you are physically, spiritually, and emotionally attracted to, based on their sex/gender in relation to your own."

Nevermind the idea that I can be spirtiually or emotionally attracted to a member of the same sex without being considered a "homosexual," which is a discussion in-and-of itself... what happens if someone (Jill) who identifies as a gender feminine and biological sex female is attracted (physically) to someone who identifies as gender masculine and biological sex female? Is Jill a homosexual? Is Jill bisexual? Why does Jill need to have a label based upon the labels of the person she is attracted to.

As far as I'm concerned, do what you want... no need for categories and labels.

now we're talkin! As if sexuality to pre-teens isn't confusing enough right? I've speculated elsewhere students might even pick gender based on who their favorite celebrity is, pick orientation depending on what has been presented/bombarded as cool.

[Phatscotty]

Genderbread person is a learning tool. Its efficacy may be terrible (ie it doesn't help kids learn) but that wasn't what Scott is asking I don't think.

99% of learning tools fit your definition of "stereotyping", we simplify stuff to make it easier to digest/learn all the time, we learn algebra before we take on partial differentials right? Same thing applies.

Kinda. I stayed outta this one for a bit on purpose.

I think it probably is a wonderful learning tool for an extremely small % of children. If you read all my responses by now, I wondered why it's offered to entire classes. I would guess the Jesus answer would be 'to teach tolerance and acceptance and understanding' and then of course forced celebration and forceful embracing. Perhaps the devil answer would be 'to purposefully confuse them, to have the ability to make them into whatever we want to make them into, as far as whatever may be convenient at the time. We will tell them who they are, how they feel, what they like, and who to love, and finally come between them and their parents and they will be absolute pawns of the state. For if we can teach them how to feel, who to love, even that they are a sex they aren't, what CAN'T we get them to do? '

Realistically, I can see a activist/biased/agenda driven teacher saying 'Tommy, ya know, if you want to pick gay, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I like a lot of gay people, some even say they are better looking and more successful in many ways. Try being gay for a day, if you don't like it, you can be something else tomorrow, even a girl if you feel it inside.'

Tommy "No, I like girls."

Teacher "only girls? because you know you can like girls and guys and still be fabulous! So Tommy, are you sure only (in a make you feel stupid voice) girls?'

Imagine a teacher, not like the one's who bang kids or sell them drugs or knowingly lie to students for the greater good, but a teacher who really REALLY hates a parent, when they get their kid in certain situations....oh my! I'm not so sure some teachers can be trusted with genderbread person

[Phatscotty]

PS what is your issue with this? I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you for this or against this, and why?

Kinda answered the first one in previous posts. For/against? #1 I think this is a subject for the family, and to be done in private. Not sure what business this kind of thing is of anyone elses or how young children handle this stuff in the age of common core. For when that doesn't work, isn't good enough, or isn't really an option.... I'd say I'm for it as far as 'questioning' kids go, but against for entire class/schools. i think it would be a good resource for a counselor, and some info on there could be educational for all as far as knowing what 'androgynous' or 'intersex' or 'gender queer' is, but really I think just knowing the definition is probably enough

[Phatscotty]

12-13-14 year old kids are being asked to choose their gender in public schools.

Source?

oh, ya know....

stay home, cook and clean, and tend the kids

[Metsfanmax]

12-13-14 year old kids are being asked to choose their gender in public schools.

Source?

oh, ya know....

stay home, cook and clean, and tend the kids

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=209776

[mrswdk]

Genderbread person is a learning tool. Its efficacy may be terrible (ie it doesn't help kids learn) but that wasn't what Scott is asking I don't think.

99% of learning tools fit your definition of "stereotyping", we simplify stuff to make it easier to digest/learn all the time, we learn algebra before we take on partial differentials right? Same thing applies.

Kinda. I stayed outta this one for a bit on purpose.

I think it probably is a wonderful learning tool for an extremely small % of children. If you read all my responses by now, I wondered why it's offered to entire classes. I would guess the Jesus answer would be 'to teach tolerance and acceptance and understanding' and then of course forced celebration and forceful embracing. Perhaps the devil answer would be 'to purposefully confuse them, to have the ability to make them into whatever we want to make them into, as far as whatever may be convenient at the time. We will tell them who they are, how they feel, what they like, and who to love, and finally come between them and their parents and they will be absolute pawns of the state. For if we can teach them how to feel, who to love, even that they are a sex they aren't, what CAN'T we get them to do? '

Realistically, I can see a activist/biased/agenda driven teacher saying 'Tommy, ya know, if you want to pick gay, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I like a lot of gay people, some even say they are better looking and more successful in many ways. Try being gay for a day, if you don't like it, you can be something else tomorrow, even a girl if you feel it inside.'

Tommy "No, I like girls."

Teacher "only girls? because you know you can like girls and guys and still be fabulous! So Tommy, are you sure only (in a make you feel stupid voice) girls?'

Imagine a teacher, not like the one's who bang kids or sell them drugs or knowingly lie to students for the greater good, but a teacher who really REALLY hates a parent, when they get their kid in certain situations....oh my! I'm not so sure some teachers can be trusted with genderbread person

Teaching about this should be resisted because it's a subject area with some scope for one or two psychotic teacher to push an agenda and try to brainwash their students? Several points:

- The same reasoning could be applied to the teaching of history, psychology, sociology, literature, politics, economics, etc. Is it still okay for them to be taught by schools and universities?

- Why do you assume that teachers would be capable of fundamentally altering their pupils' world views or self-identities? I believe I've mentioned before that the government here makes all students take classes in Marxism and Mao Zedong, taught in a way that's intended to instill a certain ideology in people. The students who didn't already think in that way tend to just switch off and ignore the teacher.

- In your world, would parents also be banned from discussing these topics with their kids, or is it acceptable for parents to try and shape their children's world views? Should news channels, bloggers, priests or random commenters on internet forums be forbidden from trying to sway someone else's views?

[_sabotage_]

Children don't belong to their parents, they belong to the state. I can not believe this as much as I want, but the state can take my son from me quite easily and getting my son back would involve jumping through all sorts of hoops.

Since the state owns my son and has a massive bureaucratic interest in ensuring that all play by their rules, then I expect that more rules will be presented and more methods of enforcement will be pursued.

This is a way of maintaining state policy of "delinquent" parents who's view may differ from the state's. This can be seen in many things that we all did as children, but don't allow other parents to do. Letting our kids play in the park, play with toy guns, be spanked. Sure, they are extreme cases of this, but in general, these were the things that were part of growing up. Now we see students arrested for biting their pop-tart into a gun shape, a 12 year-old playing with a toy gun "alone" in the park is shot and people comment: he shouldn't have had a toy gun in the park.

Lauren Hill said: don't worship my hurt feelings. Well, we do. We worship the hurt feelings of whichever "victim" provides the best leverage for the government over the citizenry. It's a question of crying the loudest, or publishing the loudest the cry that the government wants heard.

Is it bad to promote non-productive sexuality, couples who can't have natural biological children? If the state's intent is to lower the population, to steer the population, then maybe it's not so bad.

If 10% of the population isn't bearing children naturally, then there is a source for adoption and medical procedures. There is a further divide that can be manipulated.

The state has a terrible record in regards to its care of children, much worse than the parents the children were taken from. But we don't hear from those victims. We don't worship their feelings. We worship those printed in the media, which coincide with government policy.

Society needs to be drastically restructured, bringing problems down to an understandable and manageable level. And when I say manageable, I mean something the community is intrinsically a part of. Gender diversity is not an issue for me, but enforcing it is.

[BigBallinStalin]

re OP: does it matter?

Idk DK, does it matter? At least there must be a reason, eh?

We must give a reason why someone should be allowed to make their own mind up about how they see themselves as a person?

No, not at all.

The kind of 'reason' I asked about wasn't to do with individuals n their families dealing with the issue privately, the 'reason' I asked about is why schools are handing this out in classrooms, what is the reason for that. Why now, but not last year or any year before that?

I can 100% understand this being a counselor worksheet option for the 2-4% of children that it may apply to, but why to junior high students? (usually 6th-8th grade)

Don't you think it's about time younger people are better educated about gender and identity?
(Sure, the genderbread person is kinda stupid because it's not completely accurate, but I'm no expert at teaching little kids).


I don't get your question about why this year and not last year? Does it matter? It's not like we'd expect this 50 years ago, but 50 years later it becomes more likely. So what?

[Lootifer]

Genderbread person is a learning tool. Its efficacy may be terrible (ie it doesn't help kids learn) but that wasn't what Scott is asking I don't think.

99% of learning tools fit your definition of "stereotyping", we simplify stuff to make it easier to digest/learn all the time, we learn algebra before we take on partial differentials right? Same thing applies.

Kinda. I stayed outta this one for a bit on purpose.

I think it probably is a wonderful learning tool for an extremely small % of children. If you read all my responses by now, I wondered why it's offered to entire classes. I would guess the Jesus answer would be 'to teach tolerance and acceptance and understanding' and then of course forced celebration and forceful embracing. Perhaps the devil answer would be 'to purposefully confuse them, to have the ability to make them into whatever we want to make them into, as far as whatever may be convenient at the time. We will tell them who they are, how they feel, what they like, and who to love, and finally come between them and their parents and they will be absolute pawns of the state. For if we can teach them how to feel, who to love, even that they are a sex they aren't, what CAN'T we get them to do? '

Realistically, I can see a activist/biased/agenda driven teacher saying 'Tommy, ya know, if you want to pick gay, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I like a lot of gay people, some even say they are better looking and more successful in many ways. Try being gay for a day, if you don't like it, you can be something else tomorrow, even a girl if you feel it inside.'

Tommy "No, I like girls."

Teacher "only girls? because you know you can like girls and guys and still be fabulous! So Tommy, are you sure only (in a make you feel stupid voice) girls?'

Imagine a teacher, not like the one's who bang kids or sell them drugs or knowingly lie to students for the greater good, but a teacher who really REALLY hates a parent, when they get their kid in certain situations....oh my! I'm not so sure some teachers can be trusted with genderbread person

The main issue here seems to be a teacher being bad at their job.

Any teacher who distorts a childs view of the world in the way you have suggested might happen is not doing their job properly. It has nothing to do with the subject matter (ie. I would say the exactly same thing if an Maths teacher implied that if you don't engage with Maths then you are inherently stupid).

Subject matter is irrelevant, bad teachers are simply bad for society.

[Phatscotty]

Genderbread person is a learning tool. Its efficacy may be terrible (ie it doesn't help kids learn) but that wasn't what Scott is asking I don't think.

99% of learning tools fit your definition of "stereotyping", we simplify stuff to make it easier to digest/learn all the time, we learn algebra before we take on partial differentials right? Same thing applies.

Kinda. I stayed outta this one for a bit on purpose.

I think it probably is a wonderful learning tool for an extremely small % of children. If you read all my responses by now, I wondered why it's offered to entire classes. I would guess the Jesus answer would be 'to teach tolerance and acceptance and understanding' and then of course forced celebration and forceful embracing. Perhaps the devil answer would be 'to purposefully confuse them, to have the ability to make them into whatever we want to make them into, as far as whatever may be convenient at the time. We will tell them who they are, how they feel, what they like, and who to love, and finally come between them and their parents and they will be absolute pawns of the state. For if we can teach them how to feel, who to love, even that they are a sex they aren't, what CAN'T we get them to do? '

Realistically, I can see a activist/biased/agenda driven teacher saying 'Tommy, ya know, if you want to pick gay, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I like a lot of gay people, some even say they are better looking and more successful in many ways. Try being gay for a day, if you don't like it, you can be something else tomorrow, even a girl if you feel it inside.'

Tommy "No, I like girls."

Teacher "only girls? because you know you can like girls and guys and still be fabulous! So Tommy, are you sure only (in a make you feel stupid voice) girls?'

Imagine a teacher, not like the one's who bang kids or sell them drugs or knowingly lie to students for the greater good, but a teacher who really REALLY hates a parent, when they get their kid in certain situations....oh my! I'm not so sure some teachers can be trusted with genderbread person

The main issue here seems to be a teacher being bad at their job.

Any teacher who distorts a childs view of the world in the way you have suggested might happen is not doing their job properly. It has nothing to do with the subject matter (ie. I would say the exactly same thing if an Maths teacher implied that if you don't engage with Maths then you are inherently stupid).

Subject matter is irrelevant, bad teachers are simply bad for society.

I don't think it should be their job at all. Forget junior high school, just look at the overwhelming majority of college graduates 'world view'. Stick to math, science, english, if a whatever student is in the class and it's an issue, sure.....RELEASE genderbread man!

[Symmetry]

ITT Scotty has a gay panic about something he found on a website for "metrosexuals".

[Phatscotty]

ITT Scotty has a gay panic about something he found on a website for "metrosexuals".

it's on many websites, and I didn't find it at metrosex. I explored it at metrosex and all other pertinent links reported.

Source: Planned Parenthood

And it's not a panic at all. It's 1 year after all the marriage redefiners said asking kids in school if they are gay was 'ridiculous' and 'fear tactics'

If anything, it's just another 'told-ya-so'

[thegreekdog]

ITT Scotty has a gay panic about something he found on a website for "metrosexuals".

it's on many websites, and I didn't find it at metrosex. I explored it at metrosex and all other pertinent links reported.

Source: Planned Parenthood

Your quick and indignant response is not helping you.

[Phatscotty]

ITT Scotty has a gay panic about something he found on a website for "metrosexuals".

it's on many websites, and I didn't find it at metrosex. I explored it at metrosex and all other pertinent links reported.

Source: Planned Parenthood

Your quick and indignant response is not helping you.

I'm not looking for help. I was correcting Symm.

[Symmetry]

ITT Scotty has a gay panic about something he found on a website for "metrosexuals".

it's on many websites, and I didn't find it at metrosex. I explored it at metrosex and all other links reported.

Source: Planned Parenthood

It's nice that you're exploring your sexuality via many websites. Panicking about what you see there is interesting though. Now obviously you've been looking in to different gender identities, and have some problems with how people identify. Would it be fair to say that this is more of a personal issue for you?

I'm just not sure that panicking over an image and a "Won't someone think of the children" approach is best.

[thegreekdog]

ITT Scotty has a gay panic about something he found on a website for "metrosexuals".

it's on many websites, and I didn't find it at metrosex. I explored it at metrosex and all other pertinent links reported.

Source: Planned Parenthood

Your quick and indignant response is not helping you.

I'm not looking for help. I was correcting Symm.

K. Good luck.

[mandalorian2298]

12-13-14 year old kids are being asked to choose their gender in public schools.

Discuss

It's a step in the right direction, but I will hold back from having kids until schools start asking children to choose their race and class as well as gender. Then i am going to have 6 kids and they will probably save the world at least once.

[Symmetry]

12-13-14 year old kids are being asked to choose their gender in public schools.

Discuss

It's a step in the right direction, but I will hold back from having kids until schools start asking children to choose their race and class as well as gender. Then i am going to have 6 kids and they will probably save the world at least once.

Accepting the premise that schools are actually using the information from the metrosexual websites Scotty has been exploring seems like a bit of a leap, to be fair.