Ted Cruz harasses DC preschool teacher for being pregnant

[Ferguson97]

"some boys have bodies that can have babies"
"my grown-ups made a guess that I was a girl" (they guessed wrong)

These are not things teachers should be confusing preschoolers with but it's now considered good and normal in our educational culture. It's perfectly fine to publicly criticize it without sharing the name of the school or the teacher.

Is it your position that transgender people should be banned from being preschool teachers altogether?

[Ferguson97]

"some boys have bodies that can have babies"
"my grown-ups made a guess that I was a girl" (they guessed wrong)

These are not things teachers should be confusing preschoolers with but it's now considered good and normal in our educational culture. It's perfectly fine to publicly criticize it without sharing the name of the school or the teacher.

Is it your position that transgender people should be banned from being preschool teachers altogether?

Still waiting for an answer on this.

Do you think that trans people should be banned from being preschool teachers?

[Ferguson97]

It is not ridiculous to recognize the biological fact that men cannot get pregnant, or harassment to condemn the spread of an ideology that denies that fact in our nations elite institutions.

This. Did I miss some epic Earth shattering walk-on-the-moon moment where biological men can get pregnant? How is this "harassment" or "hate"?

No one is seriously suggesting that a biological man can get pregnant. (edit: adding the qualifier 'seriously' because you can find anyone who believes anything, and I know certain people will find some random twitter person who is saying this to try and undermine my larger point)

A trans man (meaning born a woman and now identify as male) got pregnant because he still has a uterus.

Conservatives who say this kind of stuff are being willfully ignorant because they despise transgender people. They know that liberals know that bio men can’t get pregnant. What they’re doing is playing the semantic game to invalidate the gender identity of trans people.

They don’t believe that Elliot Paige is a man. They don’t believe Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.

It’s bullying. Simple as that.

[Ferguson97]

They don’t believe that Elliot Paige is a man. They don’t believe Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.

It’s bullying. Simple as that.

It's possible to think those things without wanting to actively bully these people.

Then why have you, on numerous occasions, demonstrated your desire to bully trans people?

[Ferguson97]

They don’t believe that Elliot Paige is a man. They don’t believe Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.

It’s bullying. Simple as that.

It's possible to think those things without wanting to actively bully these people.

Then why have you, on numerous occasions, demonstrated your desire to bully trans people?

Please name one such occasion.

You’ve repeatedly said that you would deadname and refuse to use the preferred pronouns of your trans co-workers.

[Ferguson97]

It is not ridiculous to recognize the biological fact that men cannot get pregnant, or harassment to condemn the spread of an ideology that denies that fact in our nations elite institutions.

This. Did I miss some epic Earth shattering walk-on-the-moon moment where biological men can get pregnant? How is this "harassment" or "hate"?

No one is seriously suggesting that a biological man can get pregnant. (edit: adding the qualifier 'seriously' because you can find anyone who believes anything, and I know certain people will find some random twitter person who is saying this to try and undermine my larger point)

A trans man (meaning born a woman and now identify as male) got pregnant because he still has a uterus.

Conservatives who say this kind of stuff are being willfully ignorant because they despise transgender people. They know that liberals know that bio men can’t get pregnant. What they’re doing is playing the semantic game to invalidate the gender identity of trans people.

They don’t believe that Elliot Paige is a man. They don’t believe Caitlyn Jenner is a woman.

It’s bullying. Simple as that.

So what you're trying to say is that women get pregnant, a woman calls herself a man, and therefore, a "man" can get pregnant?

This is the party that wants to trust science and stop disinformation. Unreal.

There is a difference between gender and sex.

[Ferguson97]

It is not ridiculous to recognize the biological fact that men cannot get pregnant, or harassment to condemn the spread of an ideology that denies that fact in our nations elite institutions.

If we accept that the person who is permanent is 'biologically female'...he is still harassing a 'pregnant woman'

Should this 'pregnant woman' be both harassed and considered unsuitable to teach because they are pregnant?

Except that he's not harassing her.

What’s he doing then? What do you think Ted Cruz’s goal is here? And what do you imagine happens to private citizens  who get attacked by Ted Cruz on twitter? Do you imagine their lives get better or worse?

I think his goal is to draw attention to the prevalence of these beliefs in elite circles, and to boost his own profile. I don't imagine much of anything happens to an unnamed citizen criticized by Ted Cruz on Twitter, especially one who works for a liberal preschool in DC. I also wouldn't even really describe this as a criticism of said citizen, so much as the school for indoctrinating kids with these beliefs/exposing them to this fetish in its classrooms.

He's doing this because issues like "pregnant men" are the only things that the GOP is certain to win on. Anything else requires effort or persuasion on their part, but this is an easy win.

Republicans will certainly win in that because "the rights of pregnant men" is a ridiculous thing to campaign on, and it's focused on primarily by white liberals who have nothing better to do than find something to be upset about.

Other things Republicans will win in that require no effort:

- Inflation
- Crime
- The Southern Border

Democrats gave us the majority like they were playing a game of hot potato.

What crazy alternate universe do you live in where this is a central theme of the Democrats' messaging?

[Ferguson97]

My main concern is that kids not have to grow up encouraged to question whether they are really a boy or a girl. They have enough to figure out already without that burden placed on them as well.  

I don't want to exclude trans people, who may have a lot to offer as individuals, but I have to admit exactly how to reconcile this in the current culture I don't know.

That's not a valid concern for multiple reasons.

You can't hide the existence of transgender people from children forever. If not a teacher, then it may be a neighbor. Are you also going to suggest that transgender people be forbidden from living in the same apartment buildings as children? What about pediatricians? Should transgender people be prohibited from that profession as well? What about police officers? Surely a child may have to interact with a police officer at some point. Is having to explain to a child that Officer Dave is now called Officer Diane such an incomprehensible terror to you? It might be easier if you tell us the list of professions that transgender people are allowed to have. Because god forbid that a child see them.

And there are many "burdens" that a child may have to face. They may first learn what death is through the death of a teacher. Should we ban the elderly or obese from becoming teachers, since they're more likely to die? What about a teacher who survives a house fire? Her burns may give the children a fright, should she be fired for this?

To suggest that the mere presence of a transgender person around a child inherently poses a threat to that child's mental/emotional development is ridiculously transphobic. This is how accusations of "grooming" begin, and why so many liberals were calling this line of thinking out way back in the beginning of the year. We knew that it would come to this. We were called crazy for suggesting that conservatives want to ban LGBT teachers. But now here we are, with one blue avatar explicitly saying that this is what they want to do, whereas you're on the fence.

It also completely misunderstands gender dysphoria. Most cisgender people implicitly understand that their biological sex matches their gender. It's not something that they even think about. If you ask a transgender person when they knew, while many of them didn't discover until adulthood, a lot of them will say that they've known this since they were young kids. So to suggest that merely being exposed to the presence of a trans person is going to cause each and every kid to contemplate their own gender identity is just unfounded.

Not to mention that it would be completely and unquestionably unconstitutional to ban someone from a job in the public sector because of their gender identity. If you want to ban trans people from getting jobs as teachers, you're going to have to allow sex discrimination altogether. And is that really a can of worms that you want to open?

What your suggesting would make an entire group of people second class citizens.

It's disgusting.

[Ferguson97]

People are trans or they're not. There's no such thing as someone being trans because they were "encouraged" to be so.

Yes, there is. If teachers, who act as role models for children, encourage and celebrate children who identify as trans, other children will feel left out. It's positive reinforcement of a specific behavior. Every kid wants to feel special.

And that's what your side used to say about gays before most of you realized how silly it was.

Being gay is a a sexual orientation. Being trans and saying that a man can be a woman is a misrepresentation of biology. Two totally different things, but this is what your side does when they realize they can't win the argument they're currently involved in.

You guys keep responding to arguments that we’re not even making. It’s pathetic.

Learn the difference between sex and gender. Get it through your head.

[Ferguson97]

.
Learn the difference between sex and gender. Get it through your head.

I’ll be happy to learn this distinction as soon as you guys can agree on one.

Who is "you guys"? Who must come to an agreement? Every left-of-center person in the country? We've had this discussion before, but you're smart enough to know how ridiculous of a standard this is.

Oh, now I get it! You're so right. Now I completely understand why young teenagers with vaginas need to share locker rooms with young people with penises.

Trans people are not sexual predators. Stop spreading this myth.

I makes sense now that if you're born with a vagina, you should abandon all dreams of being proficient in sports because people born with penises are exactly the same, and any metrics stating that they're naturally stronger and faster no longer matter.

Remember when Utah tried to ban trans girls from playing in girl's sports and it was literally just one girl in the entire state? You guys keep acting like this is just some insane epidemic destroying thousands of girls lives. And even if it were a happening more often, it would not be unjust like you're suggesting. To say that a trans woman is "stealing" a cis woman's spot is deeply wrong because it suggests that cis women should be given priority over trans women, and reiterates the transphobic belief that trans women are not "real women".

[Ferguson97]

I’m not asking much. If you expect every English speaker in the world to artificially adapt their speech to fit your own definition, you should at least be clear on what that definition is.

But who is "you"? Me specifically? The transgender community at-large? All pro-trans rights advocates? What specifically is not clear to you?

There does not need to be a unanimous consensus among these communities. Rarely is there ever a unanimous consensus among identity groups.

If you want to wear a dress, I have no problem with that. You're still a man in a dress. If you think the world is obligated to learn your personal pronouns, you need to check your privilege.

2/10 attempt at a troll response.

[Ferguson97]

I’m not asking much. If you expect every English speaker in the world to artificially adapt their speech to fit your own definition, you should at least be clear on what that definition is.

But who is "you"? Me specifically? The transgender community at-large? All pro-trans rights advocates? What specifically is not clear to you?

There does not need to be a unanimous consensus among these communities. Rarely is there ever a unanimous consensus among identity groups.

I’m talking to you. There is no definition of gender that you can give me that would be generally accepted even within activist circles. Thus I am under no obligation to constantly adapt my use of language to appease whichever faction I am speaking to at any given time.

My definition of gender (vs sex) is pretty much the progressive consensus, so I don't really know what you're referring to here.

[Ferguson97]

My definition of gender (vs sex) is pretty much the progressive consensus, so I don't really know what you're referring to here.

Then define it.

In the simplest terms:

sex: what your chromosomes say

gender: what your brain says

When there's a mismatch between what the chromosomes say and what the brain says, this is called gender dysphoria.

There are many ways to cure gender dysphoria, one of which can be hormone therapy and/or gender-affirming therapy.

[Ferguson97]

A trans person getting pregnant is a biological female presumably identifying themselves as a trans man.  That's NOT bs.  Perhaps, someday, science will accomplish the feat of enabling a biological male to have a child or to fully convert a biological male into a fully biological female.  We're not their yet, and that isn't bs either.

You guys keep doubling down on this point as if we're making the claim that trans men are biological men, but nobody here is making that argument.

If you're going to try and argue with us, respond to the arguments that we're actually making.

[Ferguson97]

Two questions: Is there any relationship between the two?

Is there any relationship between the two? Well, the overwhelming majority of people are cisgender and do not experience gender dysphoria, so there can be a relationship, but that's not necessarily the case for everyone.

And is gender socialized or is it innate?

A little bit of both.

Gender is, to some extent, innate, because otherwise gender dysphoria wouldn't be a thing; however, gender is also, to some extent, a result of socialization, because otherwise we wouldn't see cultural differences in gender roles.

Dysphoria can manifest for multiple reasons - some of which may be due to body dysmorphia. A trans woman wants bottom surgery to get rid of her penis. A trans man wants top surgery to get rid of his breasts. People with XY chromosomes having a penis as a reproductive organ is a biological reality (excluding intersex people and a few other rare occasions), just as people with XX chromosomes having a vagina/uterus/breasts capable of producing milk is a biological reality. So for many people, having bodies that do not match their brain's gender is gender dysphoria.

So that's a form of gender dysphoria that exists completely independently of any social constructs. Everything I said in the above paragraph is based on the body not matching the brain.

There ARE of course gender roles which are not part of our biological nature. There's nothing in our biology that says women must have long hair and wear dresses or that men must have short hair and wear pants. But of course, many societies (especially Western society) insisted on this standard.

Now of course many people discover that they are transgender when they realize that they feel more comfortable behaving in a way that is traditionally assigned to people of the opposite sex, and the body dysphoria comes later. People are very complex and there's no hard fast rule about what "order" gender dysphoria has to happen. For many it starts by a little boy putting on their mom's makeup/dress or a little girl insisting on being the dad when she and another girl play "house". Of course, someone may do either of those things and still be cisgender. And that's okay too.

Human beings are complicated, and while there are patterns, there are very rarely hard and fast rules.

[Ferguson97]

The insinuation that men can have babies is false and has no place in preschool.  Indeed, any discussion of the trans issue whatsoever has no place in preschool.  

So, what, should the teacher be fired? Should he have to lie about his pregnancy?

It's not a topic for preschool.  And, yes, preschool teachers are rightly limited as to the topics they speak about, given the age of the children.  This is not a topic that preschool children need to address in a preschool setting.

These are preschool children, not little adults.

That doesn't answer my question. Should this teacher be fired for being transgender (and thus warping their little four-year-old brains) or not?

Not for "just being trans".  That doesn't mean that the person gets to say whatever they wish to say or share whatever they wish to share.  If they provide TMI and get fired, my advise to such a person is to learn some self-control on your next job.

And, just to be clear, preschools should not be teaching "gender-fluidity".  There are boys and there are girls when you are that age.  The interest of the children come before the interest of preschool employees, period.  If that's hard on the trans person, so be it.

What are you talking about "TMI" and "not a topic for preschool"? FFS you're acting like that they're boasting about their kinks or sex life.

Do you think a trans teacher just saying that they're pregnant is TMI?

And do not lie and say that you would say the same thing to a cis woman teacher. Don't even bother because we know it's a lie. Nobody thinks it's inappropriate for a visibly pregnant woman to tell her students she's going to have a baby, including you.

Like holy wow, it's actually incredible how quickly you guys went from "don't teach sex-ed to 3rd graders" to "BAN TRANS PEOPLE FROM BEING TEACHERs!!!!!" It's completely insane.

[Ferguson97]

No, but the fact is that the pregnant trans man IS a woman.  That's not "misgendering"; it's a fact.  Females, and ONLY Females (biologically speaking) give birth, period.  Science may one day accomplish this, but it hasn't done so yet.

OH MY GOD STOP RESPONDING TO ARGUMENTS THAT NOBODY IS MAKING

Why should anyone take you seriously if you keep doing this?

The issue here is that the KIDS come first.  They come BEFORE the adults.  This sort of thing is not something that preschoolers are not equipped to deal with.

If you want people to stop thinking that you're a transphobe, then you should probably stop saying stuff like that they shouldn't be allowed to be around children.

You are presenting a false dilemma. There is zero conflict between the well-being of children and the liberties of transgender people.

[Ferguson97]

Seeing catastrophically injured veterans (for example) can be upsetting to small children, as can some people with serious deformities.  It's not the job of small children to adjust; it's the job of preschools to provide a secure and emotionally comfortable environment.

Alright so by my count, we've got two Civil Rights Act of 1964 violations, an American With Disabilities Act violation... are you sure you don't want to cover anything else? Why not throw Catholics or immigrants into the mix as well?

[Ferguson97]

People are getting lost in the culture wars here, which of course is partially to blame on idiots like Ted Cruz, and are missing the point of why normal parents are concerned about stuff like this in schools. Kids are incredibly gullible, easily-influenced, and they can be misled very easily. To give you a funny example, when I was a kid in 3rd grade we had a unit in health class where we learned about a bunch of horrifying illnesses but didn't learn anything about how or why anyone got them. So as an 8-year-old I spent an afternoon one day convinced that I had caught Lou Gehrig's disease. I'm not a parent myself, but I can totally understand why parents would be annoyed, to say the least, if their kids are coming home from school under the impression that men get pregnant, which is just going to lead to all kinds of ridiculous and outrageous questions at home. I imagine it's quite frustrating for parents to find out their kids are coming home from school more confused and ignorant than when they went in.

Every child in America is going to learn what gay people are and what trans people are. That's literally unavoidable and just a fact of life.

Then why does it need to be taught in a classroom, and especially at such a young age? I don't think my teachers ever explicitly told me what homosexuality was. It was something I learned naturally like every other young man: through the internet and the gym locker rooms.

I have yet to hear a good argument as to why it shouldn't at the least be a vocab term in sex-ed.

[Ferguson97]

My problem isn't that it's being mentioned in school, it's that "some men can get pregnant" is a bad and unhelpful explanation that children are not going to understand.

Children are smarter than you give them credit for.

Especially when their parents aren't filling their heads with hate...

[Ferguson97]

My problem isn't that it's being mentioned in school, it's that "some men can get pregnant" is a bad and unhelpful explanation that children are not going to understand.

Children are smarter than you give them credit for.

They are, which is why statements like that are just going to confuse them because it doesn't actually answer their question. Some men can get pregnant, or some men have girl parts, is not giving them a coherent understanding of what is actually happening here. The problem is that any straightforward explanation that children can understand is not going to be accepted by the left because it will be ambiguous as to whether or not "identifying" (you'd have to find an age-appropriate word for that) as a certain gender is inherently the same as being that gender.

I don’t agree, we usually have to simplify explanations to help kids understand, I don’t see why this would be any different unless your perception of the left is based on a caricature.

And in any case “it might take a little bit longer to explain to a kid” is not a sufficient justification for literally repealing the Civil Rights Act.

[Ferguson97]

My problem isn't that it's being mentioned in school, it's that "some men can get pregnant" is a bad and unhelpful explanation that children are not going to understand.

Children are smarter than you give them credit for.

They are, which is why statements like that are just going to confuse them because it doesn't actually answer their question. Some men can get pregnant, or some men have girl parts, is not giving them a coherent understanding of what is actually happening here. The problem is that any straightforward explanation that children can understand is not going to be accepted by the left because it will be ambiguous as to whether or not "identifying" (you'd have to find an age-appropriate word for that) as a certain gender is inherently the same as being that gender.

I don’t agree, we usually have to simplify explanations to help kids understand, I don’t see why this would be any different unless your perception of the left is based on a caricature.

And in any case “it might take a little bit longer to explain to a kid” is not a sufficient justification for literally repealing the Civil Rights Act.

This is the strangest thing anyone has ever said to me.

What part are you struggling to understand?

The part where I said “the left” isn’t going to throw a temper tantrum over the particular language in a simplified explanation for children?

Or the part where I correctly pointed out that you would have to repeal the Civil Rights Act in order to ban transgender people from serving as teachers?