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.