"Gay" High Schools

[MrDoobie]

I went back and looked, I didn't see any explanations. Just the white privilege thing and then the insistence that since they will just about let anyone in, it isn't discriminatory...

So yeah, skimming.

So if it lets anyone in, how is it discriminatory? Because of that "if I say this place is for group A then it must mean it isn't for group B" you said earlier? Because it was a fairly ridiculous argument. I direct you back to the question, are Catholic schools discriminatory?

According to Merriam-Webster the definition of discrimination is....

1
a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2
: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3
a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

I assume when you say "discrimination", you mean definition 3, correct? It is not prejudicial. I guess you could say it does fit the second definition, "the quality or power of finely distinguishing", in that it distinguishes that LGBTQ students may have needs that are not being met by the public school system, and so it would help to provide an alternative to that school.

When can I have the white school for whites where we officially learn white shit?

When that definition no longer applies to public schools in general.

No one is saying there shouldn't be any private schools, by all means, go for it. But using public funds for this? discrimination.

I fail to see how whether or not it receives public funds changes the fact that it's discrimination.

Seems a lot more ridiculous when you put it this way.

Well, yes. Generally when you re-tailor something with the purpose of making it look ridiculous, than it does look ridiculous.

Not sure if I should call Godwin's Law on your post.

 

[Apone]

Well, there actually are schools dedicated just to handicapped kids. In fact, there are schools for the deaf and schools for the blind all over the place.

As I stated before, the schools that I know of are not exclusive to LGBTQ kids, but rather friendlier to those students than other schools might be. Now what that means is up to each school, or so it seems, so it's difficult to speak for all of them. The school in Toronto wants an environment where both teachers and students can feel free to be open about their sexualities. Other reasons I can think of, just off the top of my head, being inclusion of a more LGBTQ-friendly curriculum (history classes that discuss the AIDS epidemic/gay rights/etc, Sex Ed classes that don't teach a phallocentric view of sex), having a school environment that is friendlier to the needs of trans or genderqueer students (allowing students to go to a restroom that correlates with the gender they align themselves, allowing genderqueer/trans students to dress in the clothing they're most comfortable in).

I probably shouldn't have included disabled in my example because it's not apt and it gives you a reason to ignore the other very valid examples. I wouldn't compare being homosexual to being disabled-- would you?

And why can't they do that stuff in normal schools? Wasn't there a big thing with boys wearing dresses to school around 10 years ago? Doesn't tolerance of minorities work better if everyone is informed, not just the people who belong that minority?

I don't understand why they need to be kept separate if the whole point is to just change the curriculum slightly, or provide services that a lot of high schools already provide-- like groups and extracurricular activities and counseling and such.

I'm also not sure that there's enough time in most high school history classes to cover gay rights, since it's mostly a 20th century phenomenon and is often included in the general struggle for greater social equality-- really, the gay struggle wasn't so different from that of women, or black people. If you really want to know about gay rights and the specifics of gender, then you can study that in university-- but high school is only supposed to give you a broad overview, which isn't biased or particularly exclusive. Overemphasizing just one moment in time can give you a skewed sense of history-- or it will end up being some sort of sensationalist gossip about the sex lives of famous historical figures, which often has absolutely no bearing on their actions.

 

[MrDoobie]

And why can't they do that stuff in normal schools? Wasn't there a big thing with boys wearing dresses to school around 10 years ago? Doesn't tolerance of minorities work better if everyone is informed, not just the people who belong that minority?

That would be the goal, but the problem is that change is slow coming, especially in certain areas. Is it really fair to make people wait for that change? Particularly if they are members of the genderqueer or trans group, who are generally the ones who seek alternatives in the first place?

And why can't they do that stuff in normal schools? Wasn't there a big thing with boys wearing dresses to school around 10 years ago? Doesn't tolerance of minorities work better if everyone is informed, not just the people who belong that minority?

They can do those things, the problem is that this toleration is slow in coming.

I'm also not sure that there's enough time in most high school history classes to cover gay rights, since it's mostly a 20th century phenomenon and is often included in the general struggle for greater social equality-- really, the gay struggle wasn't so different from that of women, or black people.

I think there is. Especially if you consider that these movements all informed each other. We learn about Gloria Steinem and Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers, why not someone like Harry Hay or ACT UP?

the specifics of gender, then you can study that in university

I actually think high school sex ed courses are overinflated with information on STD's and that gender/sex can be taught in those classes.

 

[Billy]

So if it lets anyone in, how is it discriminatory? Because of that "if I say this place is for group A then it must mean it isn't for group B" you said earlier? Because it was a fairly ridiculous argument. I direct you back to the question, are Catholic schools discriminatory?

Yes Catholic schools are discriminatory against non-catholics. Just because you occasionally see a muslim kid or buddhist kid there, does not mean that its not discriminatory. The school was not made for them, they do not officially belong there and they will have to do things that may go against their families religious or personal beliefs.

According to Merriam-Webster the definition of discrimination is....

Wait, so how was this supposed to prove it wasn't discriminatory? Its literally

he act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

I assume when you say "discrimination", you mean definition 3, correct? It is not prejudicial. I guess you could say it does fit the second definition, "the quality or power of finely distinguishing", in that it distinguishes that LGBTQ students may have needs that are not being met by the public school system, and so it would help to provide an alternative to that school.

How is it not prejudicial? What if I want to go to a gay highschool and learn about anti-gay theory or rhetoric or whatever? I couldn't because, the school is prejudicially ignoring those points of view officially in favor of another point of view.

When that definition no longer applies to public schools in general.

It doesnt, and you have to prove it does before you can say that.

I fail to see how whether or not it receives public funds changes the fact that it's discrimination.

THe public trust is NOT supposed to favor 1 group over another, and even if it does in a de facto fashion that does not mean its right, additionally, adding more discrimination to the mix does not solve anything. And if you are saying then that its ok for the public trust to discriminate based on these categories then why isn't it ok to do it for additional groups as well? Before you think screaming "SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT" allows you to ignore the question, I concede that it doesn't prove that what you are saying is discrimination, its just a separate and very relevant question, since using government literally in the way you are suggesting does open the premise up to additional groups wanting similar rights. Either all of it is ok, or none of it is. With the exception of the handicapped who PHYSICALLY are incapable of entering a building without a special ramp, or who cannot see or hear and require a completely different method of teaching. What those students learn by the way is the basic curriculum.

Well, yes. Generally when you re-tailor something with the purpose of making it look ridiculous, than it does look ridiculous.

Either that, or your original premise is just ridiculous to begin with. ( it is) I didn't even embellish it like I could have, I just changed the group out. And can you explain why my version of the statement is ridiculous?

 

[Billy]

I probably shouldn't have included disabled in my example because it's not apt and it gives you a reason to ignore the other very valid examples. I wouldn't compare being homosexual to being disabled-- would you?

And why can't they do that stuff in normal schools? Wasn't there a big thing with boys wearing dresses to school around 10 years ago? Doesn't tolerance of minorities work better if everyone is informed, not just the people who belong that minority?

I don't understand why they need to be kept separate if the whole point is to just change the curriculum slightly, or provide services that a lot of high schools already provide-- like groups and extracurricular activities and counseling and such.

I'm also not sure that there's enough time in most high school history classes to cover gay rights, since it's mostly a 20th century phenomenon and is often included in the general struggle for greater social equality-- really, the gay struggle wasn't so different from that of women, or black people. If you really want to know about gay rights and the specifics of gender, then you can study that in university-- but high school is only supposed to give you a broad overview, which isn't biased or particularly exclusive. Overemphasizing just one moment in time can give you a skewed sense of history-- or it will end up being some sort of sensationalist gossip about the sex lives of famous historical figures, which often has absolutely no bearing on their actions.

Not to mention many highschools DO go over the gay rights struggle. In Modern History courses. There was a few chapters on it, with other civil liberties chapters in my senior year 20th century history course. Admittedly we didnt learn anything about gay cowboys or gay roman soldiers in my other history courses, but there was discussion in Western Civ on sexuality in Rome, and how there was very little distinction between male/male sex vs Male/female sex since MOST romans were in fact fucking men and women, as were the greeks, the only distinctions made really was who was dominant and who was submissive.

 

[MrDoobie]

How is it not prejudicial? What if I want to go to a gay highschool and learn about anti-gay theory or rhetoric or whatever? I couldn't because, the school is prejudicially ignoring those points of view officially in favor of another point of view.

So if a public school doesn't teach anti-gay theory they're being prejudicial?

It doesnt, and you have to prove it does before you can say that.

What needs of the white population as a group are being ignored on a systematic level on a wide scale of American high schools?

and even if it does in a de facto fashion that does not mean its right,

Schools for the deaf and blind.

Veteran's Hospitals.

Before you think screaming "SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT" allows you to ignore the question

Well, yes, generally when you use fallacies it is not a very good question.

Btw, it's not just slippery slope but begging the question.

since using government literally in the way you are suggesting does open the premise up to additional groups wanting similar rights.

This isn't a purely hypothetical scenario, there are already LGBTQ charter schools. So this is happening, and its been happening. And LGBTQ schools weren't the first, there are other charter schools that do cater to additional groups who desire an alternative. For example, there are Hebrew language charter schools that are dedicated to teaching the children a bilingual curriculum.

As an aside, if someone wanted to build an all-white alternative school I wouldn't think it was prejudicial either, just fairly useless and superfluous.

With the exception of the handicapped who PHYSICALLY are incapable of entering a building without a special ramp, or who cannot see or hear and require a completely different method of teaching.

And trans and genderqueer students often can't use the bathroom that aligns with their gender and high schools often have dress codes that do not allow for them to wear clothes that match their gender.

Either that, or your original premise is just ridiculous to begin with. ( it is) I didn't even embellish it like I could have, I just changed the group out.

Well yes. Changing the subject of the premise changes the context. Trust me, it wasn't nearly as clever or biting as you might think.

Not to mention many highschools DO go over the gay rights struggle. In Modern History courses.

And many high schools don't. Which is why people seek alternatives.

 

[Billy]

So if a public school doesn't teach anti-gay theory they're being prejudicial?

no, public high schools are for everybody, not 1 group.

What needs of the white population as a group are being ignored on a systematic level on a wide scale of American high schools?

When will you answer the question?

Schools for the deaf and blind.

Veteran's Hospitals.

are apples to oranges compared to gay schools.

Well, yes, generally when you use fallacies it is not a very good question.

Btw, it's not just slippery slope but begging the question.

You wont answer it because you know if you do, you will show your position to be stupid and discriminatory. ou have dodged answering the question for 5 pages now.

This isn't a purely hypothetical scenario, there are already LGBTQ charter schools. So this is happening, and its been happening. And LGBTQ schools weren't the first, there are other charter schools that do cater to additional groups who desire an alternative. For example, there are Hebrew language charter schools that are dedicated to teaching the children a bilingual curriculum.

Funded on the public interest?

As an aside, if someone wanted to build an all-white alternative school I wouldn't think it was prejudicial either, just fairly useless and superfluous.

So you're saying an all white school wouldn't be prejudicial? Thats your opinion? I agree with you on useless and superfluous, Gay schools certainly would be.

And trans and genderqueer students often can't use the bathroom that aligns with their gender and high schools often have dress codes that do not allow for them to wear clothes that match their gender.

So if I go to school in a dress I cant use the boys restroom? Really? Wow tell that to the 1000s of American boys who dress up like girls for a gag on Halloween and do that.

Well yes. Changing the subject of the premise changes the context. Trust me, it wasn't nearly as clever or biting as you might think.

How did it change the premise? How is it ok for 1 group but not another? Arent all people entitled to freedom from bullying?

And many high schools don't. Which is why people seek alternatives.

So obviously they don't need a new school, just an addendum to the curriculum. That some schools do at all, is obviously proof enough that youre mistaken when you say no schools do and its the dastardly white hetero privilege keeping it out. Since some schools in fact do, even schools with white heteros.

 

[MrDoobie]

no, public high schools are for everybody, not 1 group.

So, why is it prejudicial when an LGBTQ charter school doesn't teach anti-gay theory, but ok when a public school doesn't?

When will you answer the question?

What question? Why I think discrimination is ok for one group and not another? I already said I'm not going to answer that question because it's a loaded question. It's fallacious.

Funded on the public interest?

Yes. Hence, "charter schools".

So you're saying an all white school wouldn't be prejudicial?

Now wait, are we going with all white? Or a school with a Caucasian-centric curriculum? You're shifting the grounds here. It would depend on the curriculum and mission of the school.

But no, not necessarily. At least, not anymore than a fair number of public schools. I mean, if you were going to teach exclusively white history or whatever, than that would be prejudicial, but if you formed the school because you believed that Caucasian students had needs that were not being met by public schools than again I would say you were being superfluous, but not necessarily prejudicial. Once again, it comes down to curriculum and mission, and you'll have a harder time justifying a need for a Caucasian-friendly school than an LGBTQ-friendly school.

Gay schools certainly would be.

I have already noted the ways that LGBTQ-friendly schools would be a helpful alternative to some LGBTQ students.

So if I go to school in a dress I cant use the boys restroom? Really? Wow tell that to the 1000s of American boys who dress up like girls for a gag on Halloween and do that.

Cross-dressing for fun is entirely different from identifying as a different gender or as genderqueer.

Arent all people entitled to freedom from bullying?

Loaded question.

Oversimplifying the issue and the concerns when it's convenient for your argument.

So obviously they don't need a new school, just an addendum to the curriculum.

I've addressed this already.

That some schools do at all, is obviously proof enough that youre mistaken when you say no schools do and its the dastardly white hetero privilege keeping it out.

No, it's you refusing to accept anything that contradicts your anecdotal evidence and thinking anyone whose experience is different from yours must be wrong or mistaken. Which is actually fairly common white hetero privilege talk, if you ask me.



Privilege does exist, and it does affect the school system. No matter how open and liberal and egalitarian one school is, most, if not all, public schools will more or less meet the needs of white male students, while we still have schools that fail the needs of minority or female students.

 

[Breeze]

I've only just come across this thread so bare with me if I ask something that's already been answered, though some of the below will just be statements/opinions.

1) I don't live in America so could you tell me how old someone would be on average when they start high school?

Generally at younger ages we're not sure about such things and by going to a segregated school like that the average person would be coerced/put under peer pressure to "follow the norm"​

2) Why would you want to segregate yourselves from the rest of the world?

I mean yeah sure, if you really want it there as an alternative then so be it as there's nothing wrong with that but hiding away from the rest of the world will not solve anything but create problems down the line.
I want to use the example of when I was growing up I was always bullied up until I started not taking it any more. If I went to a segregated school where I fit in I would have never have learnt how to deal with my problems with other people.

And what happened to the iconic saying of "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"? Hiding oneself away seems like a step backwards than a step forward. It would be like if after the blacks ended segregation then demanded black only schools.
Sure you bring up about religions have segregated schools to themselves but the problem is do you realise how narrow minded those people often grow up to become. They live life with the horse blinkers on for their entire lives and don't step out of line because they're scared of what some unproved diety wil do to them. (and on that note if God really cares about who I choose to sleep with then God has too much time on his hands and is watching the wrong things​

3) Stop playing the victim card.

The way people keep saying how their minority group is being unfairly treated does get rather dull after a while. Yes gay people are not completely considered equal, but this does not stop a gay person from getting any career nor does it stop them from leading the life they want. Being gay will most likely never be the "norm" as that would mean that heterosexuals would become the minority and then guess who would be moaning for more rights then.​

I personally don't know why we all fight for the rights of particular groups like this, surely we as human beings should all join under a single banner of equality so that we can try and bridge the gaps between all of our cultures so that we can all live the way we want, without infringing upon everyone else.

 

[MrDoobie]

I've only just come across this thread so bare with me if I ask something that's already been answered, though some of the below will just be statements/opinions.

1) I don't live in America so could you tell me how old someone would be on average when they start high school?ow the norm"[/INDENT]

Approximately 14-16.

If I went to a segregated school where I fit in I would have never have learnt how to deal with my problems with other people.

Homosexuals are not a hive-mind that will always just agree with each other. There will always be disagreements and problems between people, and plenty of opportunities to learn problem solving skills. Using this same logic assumes that the Prom King (or whatever the cream of the social crop is considered) will never learn problem-solving in high school, which is just untrue.

And what happened to the iconic saying of "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"?

The problem is those LGBTQ students who feel their schools are not meeting their needs. Is it fair to make them martyrs to the cause of equality? Is it fair to ask children to make the sacrifices?

Sure you bring up about religions have segregated schools to themselves but the problem is do you realise how narrow minded those people often grow up to become. They live life with the horse blinkers on for their entire lives and don't step out of line because they're scared of what some unproved diety wil do to them.

Not necessarily true. I know a lot of Catholic school graduates who are healthy and well-adjusted people.

Not only that, but I did draw a line of distinction between a curriculum that teaches a rigid religious dogma and one that adapts to the needs of its students.

3) Stop playing the victim card.

It's not a matter of 'playing the victim'. It's a matter of providing for a minority.

I personally don't know why we all fight for the rights of particular groups like this, surely we as human beings should all join under a single banner of equality so that we can try and bridge the gaps between all of our cultures so that we can all live the way we want, without infringing upon everyone else.

Sadly, just putting on blinders and pretending that cultural differences don't exist will not make them go away.

 

[Breeze]

Rarely does someone know their sexuality by 14-16. If you did or you know someone who did then well done you're the exception, sorry but I'm all out of gold stars.

I'm not saying homosexuals were a hive mind what I'm saying was that is it's such a glaring thing to a character that it stands out the most. I was bullied for being bi at my school and because of that I deal with people who try to make a thing of it.

Kids don't have to make sacrifices, that's what the older lot like us are for. If you put a kid into a gay high school then it's going to brand them to everyone out side the school who knows.

I never said all those people grow up narrow minded, just that one cannot deny the fact that it pushes those people into thinking a certain way, so OFTEN they become incredibly narrow minded. Again out of gold stars.

Everyone is in a minority in some way. One shouldn't simply be a victim of fate and the conditions that surround them rather one should strive to over come all challenges.

And who said I'm talking about putting on blinders? There's so much we can learn from other cultures and vise versa. We shouldn't ignore the differences but instead embrace them and meet understandings and build bridges.

You moan that you're the minority and yet you would rather only yourself get elevated rights rather than all minorities? Surely you see how this kind of thinking is what generally keeps a minority a minority?

 

[Peppermint]

 

[Rferraris]

Yeah, no real mystery to what he meant.
And not to what I meant either. Or I guess maybe there is.

 

[the]

And trans and genderqueer students often can't use the bathroom that aligns with their gender and high schools often have dress codes that do not allow for them to wear clothes that match their gender.

By reading this thread I learned that I really don't care if "gender queers" can wear the right gender clothing or go to the bathroom that fits their gender/genders. I think they should, just use the one that is appropriate. If they are a male go to the men's room, if they are female go to the women's room. I don't think they need a new school in order to poop in a "correct" toilet.

 

[88chaz88]

Great idea. In fact let's segregate homosexuals into these schools rather than actually working towards improving the current schools that are in place.

Suddenly the quote "The road to hell was paved with best intentions" comes to mind.

Also, creating a "gay friendly" school won't stop or even lessen bullying. I'm a straight, white, middle-class male, yet even I was bullied at school. Maybe if I was sent to a straight, white, middle-class male only school things would've been different hmm...

Edit: As for the toilet thing, just destroy all urinals and make toilets all unisex. I cannot fathom why urinals were invented in the first place.

 

[Matt3737]

I cannot fathom why urinals were invented in the first place.

They occupy less space and use less water.

 

[the]

I cannot fathom why urinals were invented in the first place.

Pretty obviously for urinating into.

 

[acd]

Pretty obviously for urinating into.

Your gay.

 

[the]

Your gay.

Bitch.

 

[Rferraris]

High-school is gay