Hmm: Teacher quits in tears after being told she can’t misgender trans students anymore / LGBTQ Nation
that’ll teach me to post something from fox news
edit: sorry to add this after your like @Brendon, which you are welcome to reconsider, but having read your article i would like to add that two wrongs do not a right make
1 Like
Here’s the policy in question: https://loudounnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Draft-POLICY_-8040-Rights-of-Transgender-Students-5-6-21.pdf
Which part of it is the “wrong”?
Without reading the policy, my point was that she’s probably in the wrong in being anti-trans. My views on trans issues are not particularly well-formed, and it isn’t a discussion I’m particularly interested in. But, again without looking too far into it, I’m pro-trans in principle and if her Christian beliefs are a problem here then she’s probably more anti-trans then I would agree with.
That doesn’t mean that she wasn’t told being a straight white [Christian] person was a problem and that it needs to change, which I can believe happened. Or that she wasn’t told no dissent or discussion would be permitted, which I can also believe. Or the snitch forms don’t exist, since this behaviour is now also par for the course. These things, which Fox seems to have focussed on leaving out the rest, are still to my opinion also wrong.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
1 Like
Going back to systemic racism [in the US?] and my day of youtube binging, these came up and @tempogain has shared a lot from the host:
this one, i only got 8 minutes in. i found her vocally fried condescending opening remark incredibly hypocritical, and then his name dropping CV response a bit of an argument from authority (which he has), and then she started backing herself into a reasonable position, and i sorta lost interest
this one i’m enjoying more, probably because i like mcwhorter. at 20 minutes they start talking about universities which is more my wheelhouse and i’ll keep listening from here:
All fair enough then! My only quibble is that she was allegedly told that “white Christian able-bodied females currently have the power in our schools, and this has to change”. Which is … somewhat different to “it’s not okay to be a white Christian able-bodied female”, which is what Murray seemed to hear.
if you have enough conversations with scholar/advocates in universities you will hear both interchangeably
Seems laudable. It also sent me down kind of a rabbithole with the NAEP Proficiency thing, from which I have returned confused (proficiency is “what students should know”, but most of them don’t, and never have, what?), but without any particular conclusion.
Except for yikes, this civics breakdown by race, what the hell guys? NAEP Civics: Achievement-Level Results
(Update: Now that I’ve inexplicably read all of Appendix J of the 1998 NAEP technical report and more besides, I understand that this whole NAEP thing is a bunch of complicated, subjective nonsense that everyone manages to use to to support whatever their viewpoint is! That seems like a pretty urgent crisis to me too. Which isn’t to take away from the 1776 guys. I’m just fascinated by this sort of thing)
In one chapter, DiAngelo rails against white women who speak in her seminars about their marriages to black men. This, in her view, is extremely insensitive. “There is a long and painful history,” she sniffs, “surrounding white women in relationship to Black men.”
By referencing their black husbands, DiAngelo claims, white women raise disturbing visions of Emmet Till, and other black men who have historically been lynched for their relationships with white women. Even within marriage, she warns, white privilege endures. Black men can be racially exploited by their own white wives. Meanwhile, white women harm black women when they publicly discuss their interracial marriages. By discussing their relationships publicly, they may stoke inferiority complexes black women have concerning their appearance. Social messaging has already persuaded them that white girls are prettier and more desirable to men.
“When white women insensitively flaunt their relationships with Black men in front of Black women,” DiAngelo tells us, “the heteronormative message of white women as most desirable may be painfully reinscribed, as well as serving as a reminder of how oblivious white people can remain to white supremacy, even when in intimate cross-racial relationships.”
Incredibly, one suddenly feels moved to ask: In an anti-racist regime, would interracial relationships be condemned? Would miscegenated children be stigmatized? DiAngelo is supplying the justification right here.
3 Likes
The kind of white woman who thinks they are well educated but are so lacking in critical thinking that is epitomized by DiAngelo are, to my mind, the worst thing American has produced in the past few decades.
2 Likes
One cannot but notice that there is a common denominator across all of these unhappy anecdotes. It’s not white fragility.
Good stuff!
Any good? I’ve been meaning to watch that one, but haven’t found the time yet.
It is! Kind of a good lay of the land at this point with a review of some history.
2 Likes
I think the idea that CRT is an obscure legal theory not being taught in schools can be put to rest. This resolution was signed by the mayors of Boise, Portland, Louisville and Chicago.
1 Like
Isn’t it incredible how quickly “CRT is a right wing bogeyman” has moved to “CRT is righteous, and we are teaching it”?
2 Likes
Don’t worry, it will still be called a right-wing bogeyman 
Maybe at least though we can have some discussion about whether it’s a good idea or not instead of wasting time debating if water is wet.
2 Likes
Whether water is wet is possibly another thread topic.
EDIT: It would interest me.
2 Likes
This is going to require links to peer-reviewed scientific studies, and right-wing sources won’t be accepted.