While fans of President Obama assured outraged parents that the executive decree on bathroom policies was nothing to worry about, the reality of males entering women’s bathrooms or locker rooms at will has already led to harm in some quarters. Parents are right to worry about the safety of their children in such an environment. But with unrestrained leaders putting political correctness above child safety, many are finally considering home schooling as the best option for the welfare of their kids. Unintentionally, radical federal policies overriding sensible solutions from local schools and local school boards have given a big boost to home schooling. Fortunately, those exploring their options in home schooling are finding that it can also greatly advance the education of their children.
The exciting news about home schooling is that there is a vibrant community of home schoolers who are working together to solve the problems of curriculum, socialization, physical education, teaching tough new topics like foreign language, preparing kids for college, and so forth.
I’ve talked with some home schoolers recently and have been inspired by what they are finding. Ordinary kids from ordinary parents seem to be capable of much more than most of us ever thought. Reading at advanced levels, digging into history and science with zeal, and learning to love learning does not require Einstein-like gifts. The gifts are often already there. They just need to be taught well.
One resource my wife has been reading is the blog Meliahl.com from a mom who has been helping a lot of other parents in her community solve problems and learn to reap the huge benefits that home schooling can bring. It’s a lot of work, but the educational results have been amazing, and her kids can have the privacy and safety they deserve. If you’re homeschooling or thinking about it, take a look at Meliahl.com and the resources she recommends.
Some specifics on the harms of the bathroom policies:
Forcing Girls To Share A Bathroom With A Gender-Confused Boy Is Abuse
‘It Happened to Me’: How Transgender ‘Bathroom Bills’ Discriminate Against Women by Allowing Men in Women’s Spaces
Sexual Assault Victims Speak Out Against Washington’s Transgender Bathroom Policies
It's not like school bathrooms are safe havens from physical assaults in the first place. My nine-year-old recently walked in on a classmate about to be given a forced "swirlie" in the girls' bathroom at the school she attends part-time. She was crying in reaction to it two days later.
And now we're going to let these places that teachers don't oversee become a place where bullying assaults can be co-ed?
Answer a simple question for me, Jeff. Yes or no. One word answer only please.
Do you know, love, or are you related to any children who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender identity? Be honest.
Thank you.
For Pre-K homeschooling, Waterford UPSTART seems good for its objectives.
A recent Defending Utah Radio interview features American Family Education, discussing "Solutions for Escaping the Education Matrix."
American Family Education seems to understand well the pitfalls of public education, offering–in stark contrast–an approach based on morality, liberty, and purpose, especially attractive to people of faith. Although they also have local facilities, they support homeschoolers anywhere.
Now, as far as Einstein is concerned, he has become the cliche science genius, but should he be? Were his approach and conclusions correct? There are many questions to explore. Consider the research of, among many others, Christopher J. Bjerknes, who has explored Einstein's life, and Pari Spolter, who has examined Einstein's theories. What they have discovered is omitted from the standard narrative about Einstein.
In addition, the works of plasma cosmologists and others through the Thunderbolts Project explore what Einstein ignored, electromagnetism, casting an entirely different light on the nature of the cosmos, a light that is actually testable and is further corroborated continually.
[Bro. Lindsay, why are comments without video links being deleted and not just links? And how does one check with you first? Please email.]
This is a silly fixation that borders on paranoia. A handful of children who are made vulnerable by a medical or psychological condition that causes them to have gender confusion should send a whole generation of children running from a basic education.
The present generation of home schooled kids who grew up not allowed to have reality intrude on their parents' prejudices are probably responsible for Donald Trump holding any legitimacy at all as a US presidential candidate. For facts having no relevancy to opinion in this country. So let's be stampeded by fear to replicate that particular idiocy!
….and make sure you're prepared for the End Times while you stuff that wax into your ears.
Bursteinkefelt invites us to [c]onsider the research of, among many others, Christopher J. Bjerknes, who has explored Einstein's life….
Seriously? For insight into Einstein, Bursteinkefelt is recommending the lunatic who says that "the Jews are destroying us and all human life"?
Here's a taste of Christopher Jon Bjerknes, in his own words:
"The Jews first had the Chinese put pressure on North Korea to threaten the USA with nuclear attack. The Jews then launched another nuclear attack on America by needlessly dumping massive amounts of radioactive materials into the Pacific, which is destined for our shores. Only then did the American government succumb to Jewish demands to attack Syria. I believe our politicians were threatened with scores of Fukushimas in America if they failed to oblige the Jewish demand that America attack Syria and war against Iran."
. . .
"I warned that the Jews would again start beheading Middle Eastern Christians in a WW I redux to inflame Christians against Islam, while doing nothing but murdering Christians. I directly, repeatedly and loudly told Middle Eastern Christians that this was coming and in return received only highly publicized smear campaigns against me by Middle Eastern Christians and their Jewish allies, death threats and broken promises. The leaders of these ill fated people want these wars from which they profit as they exploit their own people and all others. They never do anything for us or anyone else but the Jews with whom they are in bed."
. . .
"Middle Eastern Christians will again be used to bait us into death. They have never helped us and did not heed our warnings, nor did they ever help themselves other than to solicit our support as they publicly defamed us. Their leaders are leeches on our societies, just as they exploit their own good peoples. The only people their leaders ever help as they perpetually beg and loot, are themselves and their Jewish bedmates. We must now focus on saving ourselves and concentrate on White interests. We should be in the streets demanding that the USA NOT attack Syria. We should be screaming at every corner that the Jews are destroying us and all human life."
Source
Orbiting Kolob, are the quotes by Bjerknes you referenced on a relevant topic? If you want to discuss your disagreement with his opinions on other subjects, why do so here?
Do not the brethren quote selective portions of works that otherwise contain objectionable content, such as Les Mis? By this, are we to infer that they endorse every aspect of those works?
…are the quotes by Bjerknes you referenced on a relevant topic?
Since Einstein was a Jew, yeah, I do think Bjerknes' anti-Jewish ranting is relevant.
Maybe it'll help clarify this if I recast your earlier claim a bit:
Now, as far as Joseph Smith is concerned, he has become the cliche religious genius, but should he be? Were his approach and conclusions correct? There are many questions to explore. Consider the research of, among many others, Lilburn Boggs, who has explored Smith's life….
If you were evaluating Boggs' "research" about Smith, would you consider the Extermination Order to be relevant?
Also, just curious — what is the "objectionable content" in Les Mis?
Anon @2:14 AM asked, "Do you know, love, or are you related to any children who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender identity? Be honest."
Yes.
I suppose your point is that if we don't accept whatever demands the politicians and activists make who claim to speak for specific groups, then we must be bigots who don't love or respect those in the group, right?
The specific needs of individuals are best met by those who are close to them, understand them, and understand the resources available and can balance the impact of their solutions on the needs and safety of others. Local schools and their leaders are the ones who should be dealing with whatever complications arise from the needs of various individuals, working together with the community. To set bathroom policy for the whole nation with a reckless decree loaded with unforeseen (or intended) problems is a violation of the principles in the US Constitution, which leaves all unspecified responsibilities and powers to the people or the states, not to one mighty autocrat whose power becomes more bloated every day.
Whatever approaches local schools and other institutions take, there is a need to consider child safety as a primary responsibility. If males are allowed to walk into a girl's locker room or bathroom by claiming that they identify with that gender, there is not only the potential for genuine stress and discomfort caused to females for the loss of privacy, but there is the potential for sexual abusers or predators to pose increased risk. For those who have been taken advantage of by perverts/exploiters with cameras, including hidden cameras, it doesn't take physical contact from such creeps to create genuine harm that can last for years. Social norms developed over millennia of experience suggest that separate facilities for males and females are vital, and the rare gender identity challenges of some should not be used as a club for re-engineering society and threatening the privacy and safety of many.
So let me ask this: Do you know of any child or parents of a child who does not want strangers of the opposite sex (based on obvious anatomical criteria) to be with them in the bathroom or locker room? Do their feelings not count? Does the safety of that child not count?
Bursteinkefelt, Google blocks some comments with links automatically when it looks like spam. Sorry that happened. But as a fan of Einstein, I really don't want to detract from the much less interesting topic of bathroom policies with a thread criticizing him. I know there were some problems in some parts of his work, but so much of what he predicted is being validated. Awesome mind. Interesting guy. And he got his start in patents–another plus!
Can I ask what is the threat of being in the bathroom with someone with different genital equipment?
If someone is assaulted that's criminal behavior whether it happens in a bathroom or a kitchen or a sporting arena or a garage or a hedge in a public park. If someone pees through their penis while I pee in the vicinity of my vaginal canal that is neither criminal nor especially threatening. And if I can hear them doing it on the other side of a partition it's hardly more so. And, YES, I've been in that circumstance without psychic scar or fear of my future.
You are talking about a simple social convention and you are tying to turn it into a manipulative paranoia instead of choosing some attempt at understanding and human compassion. Why?
Can I ask what is the threat of being in the bathroom with someone with different genital equipment?
This has been my question exactly of late. What indeed is the threat? Why should someone who has different genitalia insist on being in the same restroom? If it's not such a big deal, why are we asking a majority of the population to be OK with something that a very small minority is apparently not OK with? Why are we asking the majority to be uncomfortable so the minority doesn't have to be?
One of the great ironies of this controversy is that when I was much younger, the anointed progressives of the day were proclaiming that PRIVACY was such a sacred right, one they found mysteriously encoded and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that it trumped the right to life for the most vulnerable humans. PRIVACY was the grand common good that would allow millions of elective abortions to take place for convenience. The emphasis on privacy would be so great that some young teenagers would be allowed to be given the invasive and potentially harmful surgical procedure of an abortion without requiring parental consent. After all, their privacy had to be protected from their patents.
This was ironic enough on its own, for the invasion into the body and life of the minor by the profiteers behind the abortion industry without the consent and guidance of the child's parents can be viewed as a genuine violation of the privacy and welfare of that child. It is also ironic because the champions of the abortion industry have historically been people who proclaim to not only be advocates of privacy, but also equality, civil rights, and progress for minorities, when abortion is overwhelmingly being directed toward blacks in the United States. We would be a much more diverse society, and a better society, were it not for abortion. When it comes to abortion, yes, I'll say it: Black lives matter. All lives matter.
Now the same politically correct people who told us privacy was a sacred right want to equivocate about "what's the harm?" if someone with different biology happens to be in the stall next to you. These lawyerly questioned are raised in a common sense vacuum that forgets that humans actually do need privacy sometimes. And that there are perverts who put others at risk in the delicate settings of locker rooms and bathrooms. But now privacy, lick child safety, has been forgotten. To call for either in this case makes you a bigot.
So what is the harm if a boy walks into a girls locker room? This is not a matter of who's a bigot or not. It's a matter of who has lost all common sense.
Jeff,
I think you are over complicating the issue. You are bringing unjustified paranoia into the argument and that severely weakens your argument because you seem like a bigot with unrealistic fears. There's nothing stopping someone from entering a men's or women's restroom today–there's no gender scanner at the door nor is there security.
The problem here is changing a social construct based on the wants of a few. Not everyone is as uptight about bathroom time as we are. My uncle tells a story about being on his mission in Samoa. He was sitting down using the facilities at the community outhouse (muli-person outhouse–one board, two holes) because it was the only restroom available. No one had indoor plumbing in the community. As he was sitting there, one of the older sisters from the town came in and sat down next to him and said "Good morning Elder!" She did her business and left, completely unconcerned with the situation. Not everyone is or should be uptight about using the restroom–we all do it and, for the most part, it all comes out the same.
Where you do have an argument, is with the social agreement we have made. We have agreed that we would like to use the restroom with persons who are of the same gender. Some may disagree with this construct, but up to now, fear and shame have limited those who chose to go against it. The question is, should we allow that to disappear? Should we take away the shame involved in voiding in the same room as a stranger with different genitalia? I would say the majority would like to keep the shame and the social construct. It's worked for a long time, and we're comfortable with it. If that's the case, it is hypocritical and selfish of gender confused individuals to insist that the majority of the population feel the discomfort they normally feel in the restroom. You should feel discomfort so I don't have to.
When considering this issue, I often ask the question "since when does how I perceive myself dictate how others are required to treat me?" Does this work in any other facet of life?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The fear of boys entering girls locker rooms is shear paranoia, we are told. Tell that to the girls who already faced the discomfort and emotional stress of exactly that happening as a result of this latest battle against actual privacy and social norms. See http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/01/students-protest-transgender-classmate-use-locker-room.html. Why do their feelings not count? Why do the feelings of parents not count when they wish to protect their child from the threat of predators who could use these policies to gain easier access to their targets?
For those on the other side of this issue, how do you defend wresting this matter away from local schools and communities and making it a Presidential decree? What part of the trampled-upon Constitution will you claim gives such autocratic powers to one man? Whatever policies we need to help individuals, how can you condone a Federal dictate here?
Will you say that the offended girls are paranoid? That the troubled parents are paranoid? And that fear of child molestation in schools and churches, so often covered up, is simple paranoia? If molestation or abuse does occur and is a threat, will removing obstacles to access increase or decrease the risk? How can you argue that concern over the feelings, privacy, emotional health and physical well being of people as potentially affected by ill-considered PC policies are all pure paranoia, and that only the feelings of a minuscule minority must be weighed?
What people never properly consider is that they think everyone is reasonably rational and restrained line they are.
So when we see mass murders, rapists, serial killers, etc. such people process this information incorrectly because they project rational behavior on the perpetrators. "Surely, you're not going to walk into a bathroom and decide to just rape someone." Or, "Surely if you're going to break the law and do that you'd do it anyway."
The point skips the fact that the people who do these things aren't like you and I. They fall outside the bounds of normal. We don't need to give marginal cover for this sort, which do exist. And I'm not painting the gender-confused individuals with the serial killer brush at all.
But saying that many women feel less safe in private spaces with men around. If you're dressed as a woman and no one knows, do what you've got to do.
But we don't want to create circumstances where perverts can carve out their own safe spaces in bathrooms while they wait for the opportune moment. These people exist. Pretending they don't only leads to real rape, abuse, etc.
I'm certain more women will suffer from a misguided policy that tries to be inclusive at letting the fox in the hen house than the 'good' of helping gender-confused individuals to feel special everytime they go into a public restroom.
Well said, Geo. Thanks!