California's "Gay History" Bill

[Dak]

^ indeed. it's forsing as much as, say, teaching integration in maths and then possibly having a question on integration in the exam is forsing people to learn integration (and about as justified aswell).

 

As for being in the same place, i'd point out that i'm still against this bill IF it's legeslature, as opposed to the govournments curriculum policy.

 

(I dont suppose you know which one it is, do you? I can't figure it out, not knowing enough about american law/govournmental operations; i was under the impression, tho, that 'bills', if passed, become law, although it certainly reads more like a curriculum outline?)

 

Also, this:

 

What if the academic truth is that trangenders have not made a particularly huge contribution on balance.

 

Its a bit of an assumption, but due to the relitively recent prevalence of transgenderation, i dont really see how there can be enough transgenders to have collectively made a significant contribution, so i dont really see how this bit is justified or do-able.

 

but yeah, generally in the same place. the original disagreement was due to my misinterpretation of the bill, for which i appologise again.

[Sayonara]

My only point here is just that all special interest groups have agendas. None of them are about "what's best for the people" -- they're about achieving those goals, whatever it takes. People should understand that and not just accept one or another because of who the special interest group represents.

This seems to suggest to me that, by default, you consider the aims of a SIG to be a selfish agenda.

 

This is something of a political convenience, because the moment their aims are deemed non-selfish, and therefore no longer an "agenda", they suddenly stop being a special interest group.

As far as I am aware there is no requirement for political change to always meet everyone's approval -- if there were such a requirement nothing would ever happen.

 

What is the actual basis for labelling the proponents of this bill a "special interest group"?

 

 

Its a bit of an assumption, but due to the relitively recent prevalence of transgenderation, i dont really see how there can be enough transgenders to have collectively made a significant contribution, so i dont really see how this bit is justified or do-able.

It depends where you draw the line with transgenderism as a condition of being.

 

If you are only considering post-op transexuals, then you are right -- the significance of contribution is going to be really small (at least in terms of individuals. Theoretically it only takes one transgendered person to cure cancer).

 

However if you consider a person to be transgendered the moment they identify that their "internal" gender does not correspond to their anatomy, then basically you're talking about a portion of the population since man first appeared.

[Dak]

^true. i wasn't aware of the non-identification-with-genitalia-based-sexual-classification definition of transgender. I thought it only reffered to post-, and possibly peri-, -sex-change individuals.

[Pangloss]

This seems to suggest to me that' date=' by default, you consider the aims of a SIG to be a selfish agenda.

 

This is something of a political convenience, because the moment their aims are deemed non-selfish, and therefore no longer an "agenda", they suddenly stop being a special interest group.

As far as I am aware there is no requirement for political change to always meet everyone's approval -- if there were such a requirement nothing would ever happen.

 

What is the actual basis for labelling the proponents of this bill a "special interest group"?

[/quote']

 

Surely I don't need to give a history of the gay and lesbian lobby. I think the fact that there is a gay and lesbian special interest group is manifest. You might as well be asking me to produce evidence of an environmental lobby, or a gun lobby.

 

In my opinion, by nature all special interest groups are selfish, yes. That's their job. Asking a special interest group to be objective on an issue is like asking a CEO not to worry about his company's stock value. It's not bad, it's just the nature of the game. What's bad is when people forget that that's the case, and allow policy to be dictated by any group with a focused, partisan agenda without objective, skeptical reasoning taking place.

 

The actual issue itself is irrelevent. This needs to happen. Always.

 

So it's not a matter of legislation always meeting everyone's approval -- I agree, often it will not. What does matter is that the right process take place.

[Sayonara]

Surely I don't need to give a history of the gay and lesbian lobby. I think the fact that there is a gay and lesbian special interest group is manifest. You might as well be asking me to produce evidence of an environmental lobby, or a gun lobby.

So the proponents of this bill must shoulder the stigma of all previous actions by any and all gay lobbies?

 

In my opinion, by nature all special interest groups are selfish, yes. That's their job. Asking a special interest group to be objective on an issue is like asking a CEO not to worry about his company's stock value.

Isn't that why bills are put forward? So that a sceptical and objective impact analysis can take place?

 

I don't see why anyone has to make the job harder by adding the burden of extra resistance such as "not in my kid's school!".

 

It's not bad, it's just the nature of the game. What's bad is when people forget that that's the case, and allow policy to be dictated by any group with a focused, partisan agenda without objective, skeptical reasoning taking place.

Bills don't always get passed though, do they?

 

There is a difference between dictating policy, and saying how you think part of the world should work.

[Pangloss]

So the proponents of this bill must shoulder the stigma of all previous actions by any and all gay lobbies?

 

In the sense that they're looked-upon with a more skeptical eye because they're a partisan organization, sure. Why not?

 

That doesn't mean we're going to decide that they're wrong. It means that we're not going to accept what they say at face value. We'll put it to the test.

 

 

Isn't that why bills are put forward? So that a sceptical and objective impact analysis can take place?

 

Supposedly. But what happens instead is that a news story based on a "new report just released by the xyz group" will come out, and the next thing you know the legislature is "considering a bill" to address the problem, but in fact no due diligence may take place at all.

 

 

I don't see why anyone has to make the job harder by adding the burden of extra resistance such as "not in my kid's school!".

 

That's not the extra burden I'm looking for either. But I see no reason to make it easy.

 

 

Bills don't always get passed though, do they?

 

I'm not making blanket statements about the way laws are always passed. I'm talking about dangerous trends, not absolutes.

[Sayonara]

Right, good, I think we are on the same wavelength on those issues.

 

But my angle on this is that the same should hold true for all bills (which is pretty much what you originally asked, I think). Why do we need to single out those that are put forward by SIGs?

 

If media attention and a lack of due diligence are the problem, then society needs to address that and not direct resistance at the SIGs (who are, essentially, citizens who have every right to request a change to the society they live in, even if it's not the best idea ever).

 

I'm not saying that SIGs should be allowed to run crazy passing this bill and that bill without being answerable to the society they are trying to modify, but that they don't deserve or require being made into a special argumentative case.

 

Although I suppose they are useful as a tool for highlighting problems with the political system they are using, as you have done.

[Pangloss]

I see your point, and I think it's a good one.

[Sayonara]

Very kind of you to say so