Gay Rights Movement Makes Mockery of Self, Lobbies to Ban Terms Describing Relationships
April 16th 2008 15:21
The Terms ‘Boyfriend’, ‘Girlfriend’, ‘Hubby’, ‘Wife’, ‘Husband’ and ‘Spouse’ Have Been Banned Deemed Homophobic
Teachers will undergo ‘diversity training’ so that they learn such diverse terms like ‘boyfriend’ and ‘husband’ are homophobic as part of a massive anti-homophobic campaign in Queensland. Education Director-General Michael Coutts has taken the helm of this little campaign, which can at best be described ‘hypocritical’ saying that “We value diversity and include everyone in the life of the school … meeting the bare legal requirement is not enough” […] “Public education has a responsibility to include … to strive to make all feel welcome.” And I thought the gay rights movement made a mockery of itself with the Jay Leno incident.
Without going into the sheer contradictory nature of saying ‘people are diverse’ then saying ‘we cannot mention how diverse they are by using words taken out of a dicationary to describe them’ can we assume that the word ‘homosexual’ is discriminatory to people who are straight. Furthermore the entire lobbyist campaign seems to have an almost fairytale story to back their claims, while no statistics have been cited it appears there is enough evidence that children are being harrased based on sexual orientation, Mr. Coutts added that some students felt “lonely and abandoned as they come to terms with their sexuality”. Which ones? Where? How? Excuse me, the right wing just called, they want their bullshit maker back.
The QLD department of education elaborated further on the new anti-homophobia campaign saying that “teaching about sexual diversity, tolerance and anti-bullying occurs through the personal development, health and physical education (PDHPE) curriculum in all NSW schools - public and independent,” [..] “In Years 7 and 8 students learn about bullying, including anti-homophobia. This is reinforced in Years 9 and 10 in anti-discrimination topics in the curriculum.” […] “Same-sex attraction issues” are included in students’ lessons on relationships, diversity and discrimination.
I don’t believe in a ‘gay agenda’ or any of that extremist crap but right now I feel like I’m living through Orwells ‘1984′ except for once it’s the right wingers who have the valid concerns about too much government control.
Teachers told to avoid using homophobic terms
Teachers will undergo ‘diversity training’ so that they learn such diverse terms like ‘boyfriend’ and ‘husband’ are homophobic as part of a massive anti-homophobic campaign in Queensland. Education Director-General Michael Coutts has taken the helm of this little campaign, which can at best be described ‘hypocritical’ saying that “We value diversity and include everyone in the life of the school … meeting the bare legal requirement is not enough” […] “Public education has a responsibility to include … to strive to make all feel welcome.” And I thought the gay rights movement made a mockery of itself with the Jay Leno incident.
Without going into the sheer contradictory nature of saying ‘people are diverse’ then saying ‘we cannot mention how diverse they are by using words taken out of a dicationary to describe them’ can we assume that the word ‘homosexual’ is discriminatory to people who are straight. Furthermore the entire lobbyist campaign seems to have an almost fairytale story to back their claims, while no statistics have been cited it appears there is enough evidence that children are being harrased based on sexual orientation, Mr. Coutts added that some students felt “lonely and abandoned as they come to terms with their sexuality”. Which ones? Where? How? Excuse me, the right wing just called, they want their bullshit maker back.
The QLD department of education elaborated further on the new anti-homophobia campaign saying that “teaching about sexual diversity, tolerance and anti-bullying occurs through the personal development, health and physical education (PDHPE) curriculum in all NSW schools - public and independent,” [..] “In Years 7 and 8 students learn about bullying, including anti-homophobia. This is reinforced in Years 9 and 10 in anti-discrimination topics in the curriculum.” […] “Same-sex attraction issues” are included in students’ lessons on relationships, diversity and discrimination.
I don’t believe in a ‘gay agenda’ or any of that extremist crap but right now I feel like I’m living through Orwells ‘1984′ except for once it’s the right wingers who have the valid concerns about too much government control.
Teachers told to avoid using homophobic terms
| 94 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Sleezer's World
Raven
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It kinda makes sense.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan
www.fringefaith.com
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Chairman is a gender neutral word.
It actually means Chair Main not Chair Man.
People who got upset over the word completely missed the point. They were trying fix what was not broken.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Raven, I think the actions the state government of queensland took was a silly reaction to a boys-only Christian school not allowing gay students to go to the school formal. Needless to say there are laws that prevent that kind of discrimination.
Samaritan, that reminds me of something in computer science, basically typing 'man' into a c ommand prompt brings up a manual. If the feminist movement was rollicking back when that was being made it would probably have been 'manual' or 'personual'. heh.
Ruby, if you are willing to go that in depth anything can make 'sense' relative to some designation of what 'sense' is. 'Husband' or 'Wife' are no more homophobic than 'black' is racist to white and white is racist to black.
When you start going around trying to define what should and what should not be offensive you inadvertently start defining what is offensive. In this case the discrimination is literally against boyfriends, girlriends, husbands and wives.
We can just as well ban homosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual because it is 'offensive' to straight people.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
asking if a kids mum has a "husband" puts them in a position where they may have to broadcast that no actually mums got a "wife" or a "girlfriend" and being ostracised for it
asking if a kids mum has a "partner" is gender neutral and therefore less intrusive
similarly the kids themselves may be in relationships and not comfortable to reveal the gender of their partner for fear of not fitting in, or of being abused
all of my heterosexual female friends call their boyfriends their "partner" when speaking about them, it is quite common, and a mark of respect to the queer community as it projects the message "im not making an issue of the gender of my partner so you can be confident i wont make an issue out of the gender of yours" ie it doesnt matter if you are gay or straight im just wondering if you have someone special in your life
i would imagine older teachers may not have been exposed to the practice but most younger people opt to say "partner" now
nobody is asking for the words to be banned or saying that the words are offensive in themselves, it is just designed take the pressure off people who are themselves (or have relatives) that are queer and/or unmarried
i dont think theres anything wrong with a bit of diversity training, the education department is just recognising there has been a social shift away from heterosexual married couples being the only mums and dads and making kids aware that there are words you can choose to include everyone
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
So now in the off chance some kid might or might not be offended by being queriee on his/her parents we have decided that it is best we don't use terms that have existed for as long as humanity has. Let's just confuse children, clearly we have to watch out just in case we might put someone in an awkward position, I mean you never know, let's just play it safe, because the world is full of pretty rainbows and sunflowers.
Where do we go from here? Perhaps we should stop asking kids what their faveourite food is in the off chance there's some vegan who will be offended by what all the other kids say. Maybe we should also move to stop using terms that name religion. If we are going to be so sensitive that if someone asks us about something we do not possess/believe in we'll be offended then saying something like 'christian' would be, by all accounts, offensive to people who aren't.
I've never heard any of my female friends refer to their boyfriends as anything but, perhaps it's a demographic issue but that's besides the point, if you have a boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife then no one should be taking offense even in the slightest. If you believe saying 'partner' is all considerate to the gay community then by all means, though to most people htat just sounds ridiculous.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Whose politics are they deeming to be correct?
You need to answer that before you blindly accept what it dictates.
Comment by Troy McNaughton
Secret Sydney
God's Advocate
Musings & titbits by mctroy
I can say from ‘experience’ having only finished school in 2005 that homophobia is rife within the education system. I attended a public high school on the NSW Central Coast, and despite going the 1300 or so pupils, I was the only openly gay person there!
This feeling of being within your own ‘mico-minority’ is very depressing, and you do feel extremely isolated and venerable. This is not something I feel is strictly limited to the Gay community, and I am sure there are lots of straight students that have been in a similar situation with respect to bullying etc. However, bullying is a big issue for the education departments these days, and many guidelines have been set to identify bullying and outline measures to reduce it.
I think this move by the QLD EDU Dep is commendable, as I believe SCHOOLS should be a place of tolerance and respect- that does not mean I believe everyone needs to agree with what I do, but I do not feel it an unreasonable expectation for ALL STUDENTS to feel safe at school.
When all is said and done, the English language is one that has evolved over time and that is to this day evolving. Terms and words that we see fit for use at present may in 10, 20 or 30 years have a completely different meaning.
Nigga for example, is not a term I think anyone would support the use of in our schools, yet ultimately this word was simply derived from the Latin word niger meaning the colour black- nothing to sinister about it right? But there are severely negative connotations attach to this word, rendering its use in many cases as a blatant act of disrespect.
What about the use or romance meaning love affair, it only dates back to 1916, and it was nearly thirty years later that it meant courting a lover… of course the word when applied to a love story goes back to the 1600’s, but it started some 300 years before as a story of a hero’s adventures of chivalry.
I guess my point is that maybe this is just evolution, and perhaps it would be easy for those to understand had they experienced the sort of stigma attached to being gay or having gay parents.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Has the word 'negro' been banned? Is it illegal to say 'negro' in school? No, so why don't people say it? Because of societies own standards that have evolved naturally over a period of time. You do not just legislate the morality of a society, everytime people try it it ends up backfiring or leading to a totalitarian regime. SO now we ban certain words or 'discourage' them, lets just ban homosexuality straight up, that'll solve a lot of problems now wouldn't it?
This is not an evolution of the english language, it would be if it was being adopted naturally without the need to put down laws or take teachers through 'diversity training'. It's ridiculous is what it is.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
the words arent banned, they arent illegal, it is simply a campaign to alert people to their effect . . . there is often a large generation gap between teachers and parents with school-aged kids and i dont think its ridiculous to bring them up to speed with our changing values . . . anything that prevents ignorance will surely be good
Comment by Troy McNaughton
Secret Sydney
God's Advocate
Musings & titbits by mctroy
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Teachers naturally called students african american, there was no government initiative behind it. 'Abbo' and 'Spastic' are inherintly offensive words, I don't see why the government needs to tell anyone that.
Now we're talking about this fantasy known as 'indirect discrimination' eh? Is this the same fantasy which certain Muslims use when trying to find a way to be offended by people who eat ham? I'd love to know, because I'm getting sick and tired of this forced drama. Nothing is offensive unless you choose to be offended by it, in this case it's so ridiculous that if someone really wants to be offended or felt discriminated against because 'husband' or 'wife' was used then by all means, they should feel discriminated, but damn well there is absoloutely no justification behind it.
Doesn't even make sense, you could say that an athiest would be offended if someone uses 'christian' to describe a person, 'oh no! indirect discrimination! because I'm not christian it means I have to be offended'.
I'm going to just go ahead and say that being gay does not make you a target for discrimination. School isn't a happy go-lucky place, you have to force yourself onto other people to find respect. It's just how it is, if you look for an excuse 'I'm gay', 'I'm arab', 'I'm small, 'I'm weak' then you will be bullied, even on those points. Looking down on yourself is what will ultimately bring you down and unfortunately there is no way you can create a perfect environment through such initiatives, it won't help anyone and if anything now homosexuals will be targetted. Anyone who gets special treatment is going to be regarded as a loser of sorts in a school.
If you want respect, or you simply don't want to be discriminated against, you need to stand up, this is especially important in schools (of all places). he way you're justifying these new government initatives is kind of like how they're slowly phasing out the use of 'fail' on exams in schools, it all goes down the same road and creates adults who are incapable of dealing with the stresses of the real world.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
it would be ridiculous to punish someone for saying "husband" esp when we dont punish people for saying "fag" or dyke", but it is not ridiculous to inform them that the use of the words can make people feel excluded or unwelcome.
indirect discrimination is very real, esp for women in male dominated fields like engineering, construction and mining where a culture of objectifying women through acceptance of nude calanders and internet porn leads to a sexually charged workplace . . . lawyers or stockbrokers holding business meetings at strip clubs or brothels excludes women . . . not providing womens bathroom facilities on work sites excludes women . . . holding meetings at bars excludes people who dont drink . . . having an office morning tea and only providing meat-based foods excludes people who are vegetarian, muslims, and people who are dieting
in a world where increasingly the man (or woman) your mother lives with is not always your parent, and even if they are they may be de-facto and not married, why risk singling out people with old-fashioned characterisations that imply heterosexuality and marriage are the norms?
educate the kids to know there is one way of speaking that includes and there is another that excludes, once they have all the information they can say what they like
teachers however should be striving to use the most inclusive language when speaking to groups who are obliged by law to be there, how they speak in their own home is at their discretion, but in the classroom teachers are in a position of responsibility
noone is saying the word "husband" is offensive, noone would be offended by that word, but using the gender and marital status neutral term "partner" includes more people . . . the initiative is not intended to stop offence, it is to stop exclusion
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
The laws are already there, it is illegal to discriminate getting the government more involved will be going down that wonderful slippery slope. Onceyou start legislating what social norms are right, or even suggesting, then you automatically define whats wrong amd somenes going to be offended, trust me, someone always gets offended.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
a) wife (presumes hes married and his partner is a woman)
b) girlfriend (presumes hes unmarried and his partner is a woman)
c) spouse (presumes hes married)
d) boyfriend (presumes hes gay)
e) partner
in this case "partner" is the most generic term with the least presumptions, it leads to the least confusion, has the least cause for embarassment for either party having to make judgements and guesses, requires the least amount of unnecessary personal information to be put forward
"husband" and "wife" are loaded with presumptions that may only apply half the time, "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" implies the relationship is less meaningful than "husband" or "wife" . . . if there is no need to know about gender or marital status then "partner" is a perfectly acceptable replacement word that can include everyone and shows everyone respect equally
not everyone realises these things, training just puts everyone on the same page and informs them of their word options
so a kid at school mentions in his class that his mum is going away on a holiday, does the teacher say "oh that will be nice, is she going with . . . "
a) your dad (they may be divorced)
b) her husband (she may not have one)
c) her boyfriend (might imply she is promiscuous)
d) her girlfriend
f) a friend
g) her mum
h) her workmates
i) anyone else
the option with the least presumptions puts the least pressure on the kid to disclose personal information that may cause discrimination from the teacher or the other kids . . . its pretty basic and most people probably already speak like that as basic courtesy, but i dont think a bit of diversity training hurts anyone
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
I can do the same to the other scenario.
My point is that if offense is taken it's taken, you can't stop it, not through legislation or supposed awareness programs. It's all a load of crock to amke people feel better about themselveds. It's a pity but you can't create a perfect society where no one will ever be offended by anything.
Besides, 'diversity training' isn't free, I'd rather save that money so that it might be spent on something meaningful.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
teaching people not to make presumptions doesnt happen overnight, essentially its just about putting yourself in the other persons shoes which unfortunately not all kids are taught in the home
i also used to work in local government and when i worked there i did equal opportunity training about six times, there were always memos circulating about appropriate conduct, government employees are expected to maintain a certain level of sensitivity when dealing with the public
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
I agree that PC can go too far but I really do not see a problem with the term partner used and not just because of ramifications to the homosexual community. It makes sense in the times of new relationships, children from previous relationships, step-parents, de-factos etc that partner is the only sensible term to use in schools so as not to cause confusion and the long explanations that go with it. And as for it being a generational thing I disagree. I'm in my forties, my friends age from their twenties to sixties. Of all of these only one of these couples refer to each other as "my husband" or "my wife". All of the others whether married, living together or dating use the term partner with one saying it felt ridiculous to call someone your boyfriend when you are in your thirties. And as for the husband and wife who use those terms, it is the second marriage for them both (and the exes have also remarried and had children) and both have children from their first marriages so the whole step-parent explanation gets dragged out whenever the kids are asked about their mum and dad and their respective new spouses.
I just don't see the big deal about the introduction of the word partner. Yes, I would be against the banning of mum, dad, husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend but there was nothing in the article you linked to that said they had asked for those words to be banned. It actually says the opposite. The only thing I can see from that was that the lobby group asked that the word partner be used and I think because of the things I outlined above it seems sensible.
But it's great that your post has people debating the topic.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
PC is just a set of Weasel Words designed to mentally engineer a set of sociopolitical agendas. It has also become an industry that feeds its own prejudices.(there I said it)
By calling everyone by a generic term you diminish the status of more people. Many people see that they have earned the right to be addressed as Husband or Wife, Mr or Mrs. They see it as insulting to have their wife or husband addressed as mere partners. (As if it is little more than business contract). Just because a number of people want to go for an alternative there is no reason why everyone else should be walking around as they are on egg shells.
Otherwise eventually we just end up talking in the PC version of Orwellian Newspeak.