Pharyngula

Posted by: cousinavi | July 27, 2010 9:40 AM

Wait a minute. It's a simple question: Does he like to smoke pole?

If the answer is, "Yes," then he is unfit for...well...ANY job.
I don't want him frying my fries.

/I buy all my shoes from card carrying heteros.

Posted by: Doodle Bean | July 27, 2010 9:45 AM

It's 'cuz he would have recruited the girls into his evil homo lifestyle... or something like that.

So much for the Xian tolerance.

Posted by: Buster | July 27, 2010 9:49 AM

Wait a minute. It's a simple question: Does he like to smoke pole?

If the answer is, "Yes," then he is unfit for...well...ANY job.

This is homophobia.

Are you an atheist?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | July 27, 2010 9:51 AM

It's well known that The Gey is contagious. You don't want a bunch of young lesbians on your hands.

(I, on the other do, would.)

Posted by: scott.anthony.robson | July 27, 2010 9:52 AM

They probably fired him because there was no way he was going to molest any of these girls which is kind of breaking tradition. We can't have that now!

Posted by: dharmasatya | July 27, 2010 9:58 AM

@cousinavi: I wonder if you realize that you don't come off as someone who's a clever "Poe", but instead seem to be a bigoted, homophobic jackass.

...I'm guessing though, that this is just a case of your true colours shining through.

@Ray Moscow: ...ever wonder why the women around you think men are slavering idiots who can't think beyond their pants? No? Well, my dear, have a look in the mirror because there's your answer.

Oh, you men. Always wanting respect and tolerance from women for your pathetic bullshit and never being able to figure out why you don't get it.

You do it to yourselves, you do... and that's what really hurts.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 27, 2010 10:01 AM

They probably thought that as a gay man he would not tolerate harassment and bullying directed at the lesbians, bis, and transgendered girls on the team, and you know they can't allow that because it goes against everything Jebus said.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 27, 2010 10:04 AM

Well at least they apologized and compensated him somehow?

This happened after a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and "mediation".

In other words, they were coerced into doing so to avoid PR and possible legal problems. Not because they realized just how very wrong they were.

Posted by: Luke | July 27, 2010 10:05 AM

Best of luck finding a heterosexual gym teacher.

Posted by: cousinavi | July 27, 2010 10:10 AM

Hetero shoe sales. Settle for nothing less.

/really? do you want gay people touching your shoes?

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 27, 2010 10:19 AM

#20

A gay man touched my shoes once. I burned them.

Not the shoes, the gay. Jesus told me to.

Posted by: Mr.Nerdz | July 27, 2010 10:24 AM

Why I most certainly would not want a homosexual touching my shoes. I dare say he might want to ejaculate on them and use his semen for polish! Imagine what everyone would say when your shoes smell funny and tell them that somebody masturbated on them!
And woot, some place has got the law correct. Shame there might a a judge who's feeling uncomfortable because "To deny bigotry is an attack on our spirituality!". But hopefully not.

Posted by: dharmasatya | July 27, 2010 10:25 AM

@Irenedelse: Or maybe, just maybe, no matter WHAT the circumstances it's offensive. ...or is this where you start telling porch-monkey and coon jokes... because after all... it's JUST HUMOUR.

Yeah, I know it's tough when people call you out on your bullshit. I know it stings, but that doesn't mean that you've been any less of an asshole just because you thought you were being "funny".

Posted by: Sastra | July 27, 2010 10:31 AM

Kevin Anthoney #19 wrote:

How are schools supposed to teach kids that gays are depraved monsters if one of them's teaching them netball?

Yes, this. The Catholics weren't concerned here about illicit sex: they were concerned about illicit friendship. Kids tend to like and respect their coaches, and consider them mentors.

If the Church puts a "sinner" in this position of authority, they're likely to end up with at least one of these undesirable results: children will think that homosexuality is "no big deal," what counts is a person's character; children will think that the Catholic Church thinks homosexuality is "no big deal," and what counts is a person's character.

So I think PZ has been unfair to the religious school here. Firing a gay girl's coach does indeed make sense. They're being evil.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 10:37 AM

@dharmasatya

Or maybe, just maybe, no matter WHAT the circumstances it's offensive. ...or is this where you start telling porch-monkey and coon jokes... because after all... it's JUST HUMOUR.

People are clearly trying to be satirical. Maybe it doesn't work as humour because the opinions and language aren't grotesque enough to distinguish it from real and widespread opinions and language, but you might try explaining that rather than assuming the worst about their motives.

Posted by: dharmasatya | July 27, 2010 10:44 AM

So, Shplane, you're saying I have no right to state my objection to something I find objectionable.

Good to know that your personal position of privilege is working out so well for you.

Let me know how well that works out when a Catholic or a Christian tell you to stop whining about their religion.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 27, 2010 10:46 AM

Ray Moscow wrote:

You don't want a bunch of young lesbians on your hands.

(I, on the other do, would.)
I have to admit, I would not have guessed from your name that you are a lesbian. Because if you are male, being surrounded by lesbians would mean nothing but very lonely nights for you.

Preemptively for people who actually thinks this tired cliche is "funny": If anyone here claims to be a lesbian trapped in a man's body, there are surgeries available that can help correct that. However, if you like your penis where it is, you are not a lesbian.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 10:48 AM

@Shplane

Protip: You have no more right to not be offended than the Christians do. Monkey noises can't hurt you. Whining about monkey noises makes you look like an idiot.

Don't be a fucking moron. Charging around loudly making crass jokes simply to stir the shit-pot makes you look like an idiot.

dharmasatya seems to have reacted badly to some comments which most people would simply dismiss as blunt sarcasm, don't just bellow in their face in return, or else it'll all just end up in a pointless derail.

There are better ways to defend yourself than stamping your feet.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 27, 2010 10:52 AM

#32

Vast difference between whining about words and being opposed to practices. Religion is more than just sounds.

Not that they don't have the right to say whatever they want about my opposition to their religion. I then have the right to say whatever I want in refutation of whatever they just said. No one has the right to not be offended. Or does that only apply to the religious here?

Posted by: cousinavi | July 27, 2010 10:52 AM

Posted by: truthspeaker Congratulations, that's the stupidest thing I've read all day. But it's only 9:49am.

You make that sound like a challenge.
Be careful what you wish for...I'm just gettin' warmed up.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 27, 2010 10:55 AM

6 Foot 4 Kiwi Tim Minchin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJLFI0p752Y

Posted by: cousinavi | July 27, 2010 10:57 AM

Posted by: Ray Moscow What do you have against lesbians, anyway? Converted or otherwise?

No one has anything against lesbians. Lesbians are hot.
It's the gay men that are the problem.
Jeez...do I have to use photos?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 11:04 AM

I smell derail...

dharmasatya is either immune to sarcasm or very sensitive to the language of bigots (regardless of the context in which it is used). It probably isn't worth exploring here (since it all started in such a half-cocked manner, then there probably isn't going to be much useful dialogue), or else we're going to have another discussion about tone, civility, blah, blah.

It is pointless. Ignore it.

Oh, sorry, I guess I tend to confuse how things should be for how they are.

I have no idea what that means. It sounds like a Will Smith quote. Sheesh.

It's really sad how obsessed our society is with words and propriety when there are real fucking problems to be solved.

Which doesn't explain why you felt the need to defend yourself from someone who was clearly missing the point.

You don't need to harp on about free speech when you could be productively using it instead.

Let's talk about gay gym coaches instead of hurt feelings.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | July 27, 2010 11:07 AM

Seriously, it is perfectly understandable why a church-run school would fire a gay teacher -- he/she is "endorsing" a supposedly immoral lifestyle simply by existing. We can't have young people getting the crazy, anti-Christian idea that gays are actually human beings, often pretty admirable ones.

Shitty, but understandable.

Posted by: ButchKitties | July 27, 2010 11:09 AM

There's no need to worry that gay coaches are recruiting. Everyone knows that the Gay Conspiracy Agenda was shut down years ago.

Posted by: cousinavi | July 27, 2010 11:09 AM

I have a question: Is there such a thing as a HETERO GYM COACH?

/has doubts

Posted by: Thomathy | July 27, 2010 11:18 AM

I don't get it. I'm gay. I must be out of some loop. Well, have no fear, I'm not in the business of selling shoes.

Posted by: Rich Stage | July 27, 2010 11:26 AM

A school made a stupid call,
an innocent coach took the fall.
Although you could bet
he'd not drive to the net
or ask that his players play ball.

Posted by: P_Smith | July 27, 2010 11:28 AM

He should be fired, but for coaching and playing netball, not for being gay. Hopefully he gets a big settlement from the cult.

Netball is one of the most inane and pointless games, essential basketball for the special olympics.

.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 27, 2010 11:29 AM

Ray Moscow wrote (and let's hope I don't screw up the blockquote this time):

@Tabby @ 34: What do you have against lesbians, anyway? Converted or otherwise?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 27, 2010 11:36 AM

My feelings are hurt.

I don't know why but I feel like they should be.

Stop doing whatever it is that you are doing that should be hurting my feelings.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 11:38 AM

It probably isn't worth exploring here (since it all started in such a half-cocked manner, then there probably isn't going to be much useful dialogue), or else we're going to have another discussion about tone, civility, blah, blah.

half-cocked manner?

Let me guess, not only do you participate in sarcasm, you also promote circumcision. And possibly wanking onto shoes. I knew there was something wrong with Pharynguloids...

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 27, 2010 11:39 AM

I just dislike the confidentiality causes that are routinely added to these kinds of settlements, because they are more than likely advantageous to the wrongdoers, rather than the wronged.

Yeah, but the defendants often insist on such a clause, and courts would not look favourably on a plaintiff who refused an offer to settle simply because it had such a clause attached.

Posted by: SteveM | July 27, 2010 11:41 AM

While not a gym teacher, one of the chemistry teachers in my high school was the girl's basketball coach. The year after I graduated (in the late '70's) he had to resign for having an affair with one of the girls. (actually, I don't remember if it was actually a girl on the basketball team or just one of the students).

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 11:43 AM

PZ, I gotta call you out on that post. I don't know if you meant it that way or not but...

I think you'll find PZ was simply ridiculing the school board of trustees who somehow perceive a risk on the basis of sexual orientation in allowing a gay man to teach girls, but don't see any risk in allowing a heterosexual man to fulfil the same role (which is what they'd previously assumed the coach to be).

I'm fairly sure that PZ - as a presumably non-child abusing, heterosexual male educator - knows that all heterosexual men teaching young women aren't sexual predators.

Posted by: naddyfive | July 27, 2010 11:53 AM

"Anyone who thinks men can't coach girls sports teams without thinking about sex is either deluded, paranoid, or projecting their own deficiencies."

Yeah, I agree totally. But when people going around making comments like the one at #43...

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 27, 2010 11:55 AM

Yeah... I agree with those who have observed that post #43 is really quite creepy. Ick.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 11:58 AM

Yeah, but the defendants often insist on such a clause, and courts would not look favourably on a plaintiff who refused an offer to settle simply because it had such a clause attached.

Which is part of the problem. Courts should resist such gagging orders, simply because they obscure public understanding of the basis for the claim.

In many cases plaintiffs want the apology as much as remuneration, but this kind of non-disclosure clause simply makes the settlement seem more technical and negates the wrongness of the defendants by making it appear that money is at the root of the claim. This is then compounded by not allowing the wronged party to fully explain their side of the story.

It is a legal remedy that makes things more quickly go away, rather than really exposing them to proper public analysis.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | July 27, 2010 11:58 AM

Some people get it. No, NO ONE should be fired for their personal, private preferences.

Posted by: Puxapuak | July 27, 2010 12:00 PM

Yep I was pretty sure he didn't mean it that way which is why I qualified my rant. But the fact of the matter is that an awful lot of people do feel that way. It's the same kind of justification for things like the burka (men can't control themselves when they see women) and it deserves pointing out even when the comment was not intended the way it is most readable.

Posted by: Buster | July 27, 2010 12:01 PM

Wow! There are so many "post-modern" homophobes around making "sarcastic" and racist jokes.

Posted by: wasd | July 27, 2010 12:04 PM

Wouldn't it have made more sense to fire him if he were heterosexual?

That gay man was taking a job that could be done by a straight priest with the desired experience, possibly gained at other religious schools. They must have caught the gay guy when students and parents started to complain they were not getting the attention they expected when the signed up for a religious school.

Imagine if he influenced all those future women's softball and rugby players into liking boys?

Posted by: SteveM | July 27, 2010 12:17 PM

re 87:

And yeah... as creepy as #43 was, I kind of wonder if they weren't making the same point I did with some undetectable sarcasm.

I thought that the "Omg. OMG!" at the end was the clue that it was sarcasm.

Posted by: BrianX | July 27, 2010 12:22 PM

P_smith:

I'm pretty sure the Special Olympics plays real basketball. Netball exists because of pure and simple sexism -- it was created so women who absolutely haaaaaad to do unladylike things like sports wouldn't exert themselves in socially unacceptable ways. As for the firing, I think the "Christian" thing is rather more important here than the "second-rate sport for girls" thing.

Here's a distantly related question: can you imagine the fiasco that would ensue if a bunch of high school girls wanted to start a roller derby club?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 27, 2010 12:31 PM

I'm pretty sure the Special Olympics plays real basketball.

They do. The Spanish team got caught cheating a few years ago when they fielded mentally able players in their special needs basketball team.

Posted by: wordphase | July 27, 2010 12:44 PM

Delurking to note, re: cousinavi @ 59: nice quotation from Steve Martin's "Cruel Shoes", but did you plan to attribute it properly?

Relurking to read the rest of the comments...

Posted by: tac | July 27, 2010 12:55 PM

I can recognize my students as sexual beings who have interest in each other, but it's also useful to keep in mind that a teacher sticking his nose into that business is nothing more than a skeevy grandpa to them.

The problem is not with the "normal" students. Unfortunately as a physician I've been confronted with problem teenagers (most likely abused) who dress/act inappropriately sexual. NOT something sexually interesting (to me) but still distracting in the clinic or class room setting. (distracting in the same was as a cell phone going off over and over)

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 1:25 PM

The problem is not with the "normal" students. Unfortunately as a physician I've been confronted with problem teenagers (most likely abused) who dress/act inappropriately sexual. NOT something sexually interesting (to me) but still distracting in the clinic or class room setting. (distracting in the same was as a cell phone going off over and over)

I'm not sure how that relates to this:

I can recognize my students as sexual beings who have interest in each other, but it's also useful to keep in mind that a teacher sticking his nose into that business is nothing more than a skeevy grandpa to them.

A small minority of teenagers with confused boundaries due to abuse or mental health issues are certainly a group that require safeguards, specialist help, and proper awareness/policy formulation, but it is hardly relevant to this discussion.

I'd caution that it shifts the discussion dangerously and uncomfortably towards victim blaming in the context of sexual abuse/abuse of trust by educators.

Posted by: kilternkafuffle | July 27, 2010 1:36 PM

I know it's sarcasm, but I also felt creeped out by the extremeness of some of the comments. Admittedly, some were in reaction to admonitions. But whatever, they don't mean it, so moving on...

@Tabby: I doubt Pharyngula is full of guys who think they'll convert the lesbians they meet. (Or girls who'll convert the gays.) It is a legit concern in general though.

That being said, straight men find lesbian love hot. Likewise, straight women find gay love hot. I've seen the studies 0_0. Straight males (in that study) were actually most aroused by lesbian (as opposed to gay or straight) pornography, presumably because it had 100% pretty woman instead of hairy other men. I claim the right for all to freely fantasize/appreciate across the Kinsey-fuzzy lines of sexuality. In itself that doesn't make the conversion assumption. =)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 1:55 PM

There appears to be some confusion between noticing attraction and being an "old pervert." Noticing that someone is sexually attractive is, for normal people, quite separate from thinking "I must have that person NOW." I don't really believe guys of any age who say that they don't notice the sexual attractiveness of young women. I also don't believe middle aged women who deny that being in a camp of 19 year old guys might be an eye-candy experience. What I will believe is that there is a near-total divide between the "oh, look at him/her" moment and the "wow, I'm having a lot of trouble not doing [insert complicated details here]" bit.

One of the worst things Christianity has given us is the idea that desire and random thoughts are sinful. Until we can get over that nonsense, we're stuck with the silly situation that reasonable adults have to deny that 17 year old girls (or boys) can be hot-looking in order to establish that they're not really molesters waiting to happen.

And just for the record, noticing is totally separate from posting lists of those you've noticed, online or on the bathroom wall, verbally harassing those you've noticed, giving preferential or punitive treatment to those you've noticed, etc.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle | July 27, 2010 2:05 PM

I dunno guys. Netball is gay enough as it is.

Have you ever seen professional women's netball? If you think it's gay you're obviously NOT a leg-man. A good Aussie v Kiwi match is like 7 Valkyries versus 7 Xenas... in tiny, tiny dresses!

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 27, 2010 2:24 PM

Well, there is a weird undercurrent in this thread. I suspect a lot of it is stemming from the response to the Poe responses. In other words, in many threads when someone trips and falls over a Poe or snarky comment in general, there is usually a response along the lines of "you dun dere tripped over a Poe" with some gentle ribbing and usually the author of the snarky piece doing something akin to "yup, I was being snarky, see my serious posts on this thread" or "yup, I was being snarky".

Whereas this post has the Poes just staying in character, with a few being WAY too subtle and possibly real bigots (Googlemess @7 is a comment I've seen in earnest way way too many times) and some angry, almost bloodthirsty defenses of the Poes, including shplane @29 doing his "anti-PC" warrior, I have a right to be an asshole without comment shtick.

That combined with the absence of the usual gay voices on the thread (no MAJeff, Josh, Gyeong, etc...), makes it feel a little off and I think people are responding to that.

Just one person's suspicion though.

On the topic though:

Sastra @28 already hit the nail on the head.

Keeping "gays away from their kids" and the crusade against all "deviant teachers" (LGBTs, poly, outspoken women, atheists, blacks, etc...) is all about enforcing the idea of them as foreign demonic entities.

It doesn't help ensure the continuation of bigotry if when your child is thinking of the "insert scary them here" group, they are thinking about beloved teachers, mentors, friends, and babysitters.

It's hard to sell your daughter on "gays are all evil, God wants you to hate them even if you are them", if they are thinking about nice Mr. Henderson, the netball coach who stays late to help the struggling kids and doesn't try and leer at their butts like creepy Mr. Franklin, the gym teacher no one likes.

As such he has to go to ensure the narrative of white Jesus Utopia continues uninterrupted by pesky nasty reality.

Posted by: prichert | July 27, 2010 2:26 PM

This whole thread has been one giant mess of people misunderstanding each other.

Hot lesbian love: just to be clear, men enjoy fake hot lesbian love which is created by the porn industry specifically for men. The actors themselves almost assuredly are not lesbians, they are either bi-sexual or willing to act that way for the employment. Straight men enjoy looking at naked woman and seeing / hearing their pleasured responses. They have much less to no interest in seeing a man in the picture, and nothing is more disgusting then seeing and/or hearing pleasured responses from a man.

Posted by: prichert | July 27, 2010 2:40 PM

Also I (to make it personal) find some 100% lesbian lesbians sexy.

I stand corrected. Let me change my post from "Straight men" to "Most straight men..."

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | July 27, 2010 2:45 PM

Just to be clear: people overgeneralize.

Yes, some straight men find lesbian love hot. Others aren't interested either in actual lesbians, or in bi women together, or in het women posing as lesbians for the benefit of a male audience. Nor do all straight men find it disgusting to see pleasured responses from another man. People vary. A lot.

All that studies in this area can show is "some people like this," but reporting easily glosses over the differences between "I like/do this" and "a bunch of people like this," between "me and the four people I was having drinks with the other night" and "young women living in London."

Also, I am deeply skeptical of any claim of the form "any person/man/woman who claims to be different from me is lying."

Posted by: kilternkafuffle | July 27, 2010 2:50 PM

@prichert: I'm aware of most lesbian porn being fake, and should backtrack a little to accommodate the fact. I guess it's possible that most straight males may not find real lesbians sexy.

Also, I'm straight on the 3-point (gay-bi-straight) scale, but wouldn't put myself as 0 on the Kinsey 7-point scale (exclusively hetero to exclusively homo). Take that as you will in terms of the original question.

@Cerberus: You describe exactly what I felt but better/more thoroughly than I did.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 27, 2010 2:54 PM

Saying something like 'Does he smoke pole?' or 'Netball is gay enough as it is.' are inflamatory statements. This kind of use is demeaning to homosexuals and trades on our culture's homophobic mores to produce a reaction.

I can understand that the commenters were attempting to be sarcastic, but when language like that slips in I slip from appreciation to offense.

Posted by: prichert | July 27, 2010 3:03 PM

Well its true I over generalized. The very existence of fetish porn sites demonstrate there is a lot of variety out there. But while I over generalized I will stand behind the fact that there is a generalization as can be evidenced by visiting a porn site and seeing what proportions of types of porn are created or displayed.

Posted by: dharmasatya | July 27, 2010 3:13 PM

Lovely. I fail at HTML.

Posted by: toddcaton | July 27, 2010 3:18 PM

I bet Ted Haggard would hire him.

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 27, 2010 3:30 PM

dharmasatya (#103)

...but I guess the opinion of one person isn't worth much, since I'm not a straight white male.

If you think this is an accurate portrayal of Pharyngula, you don't know the culture here at all. Anyone's opinion is welcome so long as they can hit their mark and back up what they say. I suggest you improve your aim. For instance, in #12 you assumed two people's motives and then used outrage against their imagined motives rather than arguments.

~*~*~*~*~*~

johnlil#0a224

any heterosexual man who says he doesn't find teenage girls attractive - at least physically - is lying (sorry, PZ)

PZ very plainly said the female students at his school "are young and attractive." You're apparently not getting the difference between "attractive" and "subject of lust."

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 27, 2010 3:49 PM

Vicki @ #114 wins the thread for injecting a note of sanity amid the poes vs concern trolls bunfight.

There is a professional netball league here in the UK, which is occasionally televised: the fact that some of the players are highly attractive is no doubt a factor in its popularity, and I don't see that that's a particularly bad thing (let's face it, any sport played by women has a built-in aesthetic advantage). If you can get past the notion that netball is essentially slowed-down basketball, the sport can be very entertaining on its own terms.

I can sort of understand this school's sensitivity, having personal experience of a borderline paedophile/sadistic gym teacher, but their default assumption of "gay=evil" is just depressing, all-too familiar Christian knee-jerk.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 27, 2010 4:07 PM

Mattir #104

One of the worst things Christianity has given us is the idea that desire and random thoughts are sinful. Until we can get over that nonsense, we're stuck with the silly situation that reasonable adults have to deny that 17 year old girls (or boys) can be hot-looking in order to establish that they're not really molesters waiting to happen.

QFT

It's not just Christianity with that idea. Islam and Judaism push the "sexual thoughts are evil" motif as well. As H.L. Mencken explained:

Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 4:11 PM

@Tis - Actually, Judaism is pretty strong on the "thoughts aren't sins, only actions are" theme. Sitting around dreaming up elaborate scenarios might rise to the level of sin, but generally, thoughts are just thoughts and the mark of a human being is to know what to do with their thoughts.

I think it really is a Christian (and probably Islamic) thing - the Jimmy Carter "lust in his heart" problem.

Where is Owlmirror when we need him?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 27, 2010 4:20 PM

You may be right, Mattir. I was thinking of the misogyny in Orthodox Judaism: "Thank you, God, I was not born a woman."

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 27, 2010 4:26 PM

and the problem with our "satirists" at the begining of the thread? You're not funny. Your jokes are easy, lame, and tired. It's like making battered wife jokes (like the old, "what do you tell a woman with two black eyes?" "joke"). Leave the jokes to people who are actually clever.

Hint: good satire is not about yelling the most outrageous stereotype as loudly as you can.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 27, 2010 4:28 PM

Ignoredchild appears to have a problem with me and comments I have written earlier in the thread. Oddly enough, I find myself not giving a damn.

Strange that...

Posted by: kilternkafuffle | July 27, 2010 4:40 PM

@ignoredchild:

Whatever you're insinuating about Tabby is baseless. Tabby has displayed neither disdain for nor offense at anybody's sexuality or personal preferences.

While you are completely free to question anyone's concern about tone, questioning concerns about discrimination and stereotypes, as Tabby had done with the original Ray Moscow's comment, is well within the spirit of a liberal blog. Being offended at discriminatory perceptions isn't a personal issue here, it is a public one.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnG39uMFt69kwCKZ8DoxtmMCvmzr5chx94 | July 27, 2010 5:03 PM

I TOTALLY agree that #7 and #43 were creepy. I wrote them! When I read this post my first reaction was that there are probably some really creepy guys out there who would totally agree with the way it was written. So I wrote #7 to get an angry response that this is NOT any homophobic BS. But people just tried to be even ruder than I was! Then I tried again with #43. And people were just making fun about others who could not understand sarcasms!

Happy that some people finally reacted to all this shit. And sorry to those who were seriously offendend. Peace.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 5:19 PM

@ Bill - You can come sit over here next to me in the Bad Middle Aged People corner.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 27, 2010 5:25 PM

Ooh, that corner I understand. If I keep quiet can I sit there too?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 27, 2010 5:31 PM

@ Bill
I think you miss a vital third point on what makes graphic sexual imagery work. Projection. Being able to insert (hah) yourself is vital to many people's enjoyment of pornography.

Not saying that I disagree with any of your conclusions, but I think the distinction is important.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 27, 2010 5:34 PM

To clarify that post, as it appears that you may have misunderstood, I was tempted to make a "sharp knife" comment but changed my mind because there are M2F transgendered women who truly are lesbians trapped in a man's body. Granted, I don't know many transwomen, but every incidence of that particular phrase I've ever come across has been from a heterosexual man.
However, the fact that it's always straight men I hear (or read) saying it would be no excuse for discounting the existence of lesbian transwomen, so I tried to word my comment in such a ways as to get across my distaste for the alleged joke while taking their existence and feelings into account.
Re-reading my original post, I see two mistakes I made. One of them was using the word "claims", but that was because I didn't expect any transwomen to make the comment in the first place (see above about experience in hearing and reading it). The second was bringing the subject up in the at all. Consider it a conditioned response.

Posted by: Hekuni Cat, Champion of Oriana | July 27, 2010 7:13 PM

Posted by: Mattir | July 27, 2010 3:15 PM

Cerberus, I really love you. Really.

Me too!

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 27, 2010 7:32 PM

Just when I thought Christian Culture couldn't get any more bland or bereft of imagination, they roll out a school named Christchurch.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 27, 2010 7:36 PM

Sili @154

Oh, that's embarrassing.

...

What's the Emily Litella "oops, never mind" line at the end of the old SNL sketches?

Can I be embarrassed for the city founders who thought that was a great name, at least?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 27, 2010 7:45 PM

One thing more on-topic than my reading comprehension failures, I'm a little worried about the bigot push at least in the US regarding trying to fire or at least make "controversial" trans teachers in secular schools.

There's been the same sort of open-ended reason given. "Would you want your child learning from them?" With a sort of open-ended assumption that LGBT people are open-ended child molesters (you know like Catholic priests).

Of course the real reason is the same thing as this one, exposure to "the freaks" lessens the scare tactics against them and thus damages the attempt to teach hate to the next generation.

But, yeah, hate groups like TVC have been upping the rhetoric against the very notion of trans teachers, which yeah, they've been gunning for all non-white, heterosexual, fundie teachers for awhile, but still, it's slightly worrying to a young transwoman who is trying to break into the whole teaching/academia thing.

Posted by: Rhino | July 27, 2010 10:59 PM

Very entertaining posts here folks, glad to see the poor coach was appropriately compensated (well in monetary terms, the emotions, feelings and rejection of his student body masters well...).

This differs little from my experiences at a religious school in Australia, were on the Friday assembly before the Gay Lesbian Mardi Gras the middle school principle gave us the speech on "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" the whole school of (boys) found it hilarious.

Oh and hey iamjustme, a fellow NSW resident here.

Posted by: Marella | July 28, 2010 12:37 AM

Netball is one of the most inane and pointless games

How can any game be any more inane or pointless than any other? They are all completely pointless except in their own terms. Though some of them provide exercise.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 28, 2010 12:46 AM

American high school is like year 9-12 in Australian terms. Ages about 14-18. Though I've been getting the impression that age of consent in the US is mostly 18? Or is that just some states?

Posted by: mikee | July 28, 2010 1:49 AM

@Cerberus 108

As perceptive and eloquent as usual. I couldn't quite work out what seemed off about some of these posts until you pointed it out.

@142

You must have a fascinating outlook on life if you feel the need to use bigoted and obnoxious statements to provoke a discussion. Thank you for apologising and explaining, as I found your comment at #43 quite disturbing.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 28, 2010 2:11 AM

Cath (@165):

American high school is like year 9-12 in Australian terms. Ages about 14-18.

Yah, that's the age range I had in mind.

Though I've been getting the impression that age of consent in the US is mostly 18? Or is that just some states?

Seems to range from 16 to 18, and there are state-to-state differences in details like age-gap provisions. (Note that this range skewed younger as recently as 10 years ago, with some states going as low as 14.) I had 17 in mind as an average figure when I made my earlier comment. Since the average American HS student turns 17 during their junior year (i.e., year 11), that means anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of the student body at a typical HS may be at or above the age of consent (depending on where you are in the calendar). If you consider that 15 and 16 year olds are sexually mature in a biological sense, and are often sexually active amongst their age-group peers, a fairly large fraction of the HS population is made of of plausibly sexual people.

None of that excuses any sexual involvement between teachers and students, of course. Even when the student is "legal" and the teacher is reasonably close in age (i.e., just out of college, for instance), the teacher-student dynamic makes any sexual involvement strictly inappropriate. My point, though, was that, unlike actual children, these are young people — proto-adults, as I called them before — who are at least plausibly tempting to normal adults. That makes the issue a matter of behavioral discipline rather than pathology, and hence a somewhat different sort of problem.

All of which is to say there's good reason to be concerned about teachers being sexually interested in students... but, of course, there's not any good reason to lay that concern particularly at the feet of gay men.

Marella (@163):

Netball is one of the most inane and pointless games

How can any game be any more inane or pointless than any other?

Well, I don't know what you consider inane, but as near as I can tell, netball is both redundant and inherently sexist: I had actually never heard of the game until someone mentioned it here at Pharyngula (AFAIK it's not played at all in the U.S.), but Herr Doktor Wiki tells me that it was invented shortly after basketball, as an easier girls' version of same. Of course, it turns out that girls and women are perfectly capable of playing real basketball (just ask Diana Taurasi or Maya Moore), so yeah, I think (admittedly sight-unseen) that netball is kinda' pointless.

I wonder if softball has a similar history vis-a-vis baseball? Of course, since women (other than Madonna, Geena Davis, and Rosie O'Donnell) generally don't play baseball, women's softball isn't redundant... but men's softball kinda' is, I think.

Posted by: John Morales | July 28, 2010 2:39 AM

[SIWOTI]

Bill:

Herr Doktor Wiki tells me that it was invented shortly after basketball, as an easier girls' version of same. Of course, it turns out that girls and women are perfectly capable of playing real basketball (just ask Diana Taurasi or Maya Moore), so yeah, I think (admittedly sight-unseen) that netball is kinda' pointless.

Um. Your conclusion is, I think, based on spurious reasoning; the origin of a sport is about as relevant to its current status as the etymology of a word is to its current use.

For mine, such virtues as ball team sports have are possessed by netball no less than by basketball.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 28, 2010 3:24 AM

But in any case, it's not just 'Murican exceptionalism on my part: If it were up to me, we'd get rid of softball and everyone would play real baseball instead!

Or rounders as we prefer to call it in the UK.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 28, 2010 3:56 AM

One advantage netball currently has over basketball: the uniforms are nowhere near as ridiculous...

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 28, 2010 9:54 AM

John:

I won't quibble with you over the word redundant. Your own version of events reveals that netball was invented to duplicate an existing sport as nearly as possible within the constraints of the endemic sexism of the time... and that, absent that sexism, there would've been no need for netball. That's what I've been getting at all along, and if my language didn't convey that to you, I'm happy to agree with your language. And, of course, the notion of "forcing" everyone to play basketball instead (or baseball instead of softball, for that matter) was really just a bit of a laugh.

The only reason this is even a possible discussion is that both basketball and netball were so much more discretely invented than other major sports, which have for the most part developed over time from other games.

Speaking of which...

Matt:

I knew baseball was "descended" from rounders (not invented by Abner Doubleday and not much related to cricket, contrary to two popular American misconceptions), but I didn't realize any form of rounders was still played. Interesting!

Based on my quick scan of the wiki, it seems as if rounders is more similar to softball than to modern baseball, but softball appears to have been a variant of baseball, rather than a direct descendent of rounders.

Alice:

I have no clue what folks wear to play netball, but basketball uniforms — sleeveless jerseys and loose-fitting shorts — strike me as functionally ideal for the game. They're essentially gender-neutral, too, which pleases my anti-sexist inclinations, even if it sometimes disappoints my straight-guy nature. Do netballers wear skirts? Form-fitting tight shorts like (indoor) volleyball players? Bikinis like (beach) volleyball players? Enquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: B. Stardust | July 28, 2010 10:46 AM

We (NZ) had a case in the mid nineties dealing with a gay man working at a children's creche, and when it was discovered that he was gay all sorts of accusations were flung. The consensus amongst thinking people is that the parents coerced their children's testimonies and that he was convicted for just being gay. For those interested google 'Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis'.

Posted by: John Morales | July 28, 2010 7:42 PM

Bill,

netball was invented to duplicate an existing sport as nearly as possible within the constraints of the endemic sexism of the time... and that, absent that sexism, there would've been no need for netball.

Yes, that's something I can entirely agree with.

That's what I've been getting at all along, and if my language didn't convey that to you, I'm happy to agree with your language.

I do tend to be too literal.

What you've been getting at was definitely worth mentioning, because in some ways, things haven't changed that much.

(Although I note men's Grand Slam tennis events are best-of-5 sets, while women's are best-of-3; however, the prizemoney is equal. Silver lining?)