What's a "Purple Penguin"?The gender inclusive name for boys & girls in Nebraska public schools

[Drolefille]

I'm not. But I'm not going to explain myself again. Tired of repeating myself. A trans person would know what I mean.

You're talking about "getting mad" about not being identified as a man while not making the effort to present as such. That makes some sense, particularly when it comes to strangers. I hope that people don't get mad in general - although I understand when someone's been misgendered for the 10th time it's the LAST straw - but the counter to that is, if it's someone you know, and whose gender identity you're familiar with, are you going to deliberately misgender that person or call them by the pronouns you know they prefer despite the fact that he is wearing makeup and heels?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My understanding is that hijras, for example, do not WANT to be considered "women". They want to be considered hijra. They don't want to be discriminated against for being hijra, but they aren't women. I can't speak to the others, this is just based on what I've read, so if someone has research to suggest otherwise I'd be interested.

In those cultures, transsexual women are often lumped into the third gender category. That ruling from India earlier this year was problematic: Round Table India - Gender Outlawed: The Supreme Court judgment on third gender and its implications

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're talking about "getting mad" about not being identified as a man while not making the effort to present as such. That makes some sense, particularly when it comes to strangers. I hope that people don't get mad in general - although I understand when someone's been misgendered for the 10th time it's the LAST straw - but the counter to that is, if it's someone you know, and whose gender identity you're familiar with, are you going to deliberately misgender that person or call them by the pronouns you know they prefer despite the fact that he is wearing makeup and heels?

No, I call people what they want to be called. I'm not a dunce when it comes to drag and cross dressing.

 

[Drolefille]

In those cultures, transsexual women are often lumped into the third gender category. That ruling from India earlier this year was problematic: Round Table India - Gender Outlawed: The Supreme Court judgment on third gender and its implications

I understand that, but that doesn't invalidate the experiences and preferences of the hijra. I'd want a trans woman to be able to identify as a woman as much as a hijra gets to identify as third gender. Progress is rarely universal - we take steps forward as frequently as we take steps back. It's like an odd dance where we slide sideways to solutions that cause more problems even as they fix one.

But what bothers me is your invalidation of everyone who doesn't identify within the binary as well as the implication that their identifications insult transsexual people specifically.

It's like the negative implications on someone identifying as bicurious or heteroflexible - "they're just straight/in it for the guys/etc." That isn't necessarily true even if those labels ARE often used immaturely. Every generation thinks that the younger one is childish and immature with its labeling. I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is, whether they're silly or not, whether they're alphabet soup, or non-gender or whatever, who cares. They aren't infringing on your identity any more than you infringe on mine.

 

[Drolefille]

No, I call people what they want to be called. I'm not a dunce when it comes to drag and cross dressing.

I'm not talking about drag or cross dressing. Those are pretty specific sub cultures. I'm talking about every day presentation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand that, but that doesn't invalidate the experiences and preferences of the hijra. I'd want a trans woman to be able to identify as a woman as much as a hijra gets to identify as third gender. Progress is rarely universal - we take steps forward as frequently as we take steps back. It's like an odd dance where we slide sideways to solutions that cause more problems even as they fix one.

But what bothers me is your invalidation of everyone who doesn't identify within the binary as well as the implication that their identifications insult transsexual people specifically.

It's like the negative implications on someone identifying as bicurious or heteroflexible - "they're just straight/in it for the guys/etc." That isn't necessarily true even if those labels ARE often used immaturely. Every generation thinks that the younger one is childish and immature with its labeling. I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is, whether they're silly or not, whether they're alphabet soup, or non-gender or whatever, who cares. They aren't infringing on your identity any more than you infringe on mine.

What I'm most concerned about is everyone being lumped in together when we're not the same. I do not subscribe to the "trans umbrella" concept. Yes, there's also some aspects of non-binary and non-gender that seem rather illogical to me and seem to be a result of conflating behavior and gender identity, but that's another subject. The debate over terms, labels and the umbrella concept has been going for years, since before I was born, and will continue for the foreseeable future. That may be hard for some to understand, but trans people don't all think alike, there's different groups and we don't all like each other. (Not directing that to you personally, but in general.) I'm not saying they don't have the right to call themselves what they want, though. Live and let live. I want to be left alone just as I'm assuming they want to be left alone.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not talking about drag or cross dressing. Those are pretty specific sub cultures. I'm talking about every day presentation.

I'm using cross dressing as a general term.

 

[dust1n]

Can I get much more specific?

Fair enough.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think the harm occurs in pointing out, regardless of any name allowed to take the place of traditional gender identifiers, is that the mere suggestion of a differing policy to address Trans-children, rather than marking the effort as one of inclusion, is actually aligned to not only demarginalize the child labeled something other than boy or girl. But is, per the example of purple penguin, something intended to mock them.
A boy who feels he has a girl inside and dresses the part is then a girl. That's what he's hoping to be identified as in society and according to his augmented appearance. He strives for that acceptance. Calling him a green turkey, if the field is open for any name to apply besides girl, mocks those efforts and the emotions that child is undergoing.

He's a girl. That's how he feels. Calling him something else just puts that hurdle of acceptance and achievement further away from his achieving his goal. Her goal.

That's harmful. He's not a purple penguin. He's a boy who feels like he has a girl inside him. I think the people who came up with this stupid idea have no idea what that means to a child. And that's why they're resorting to something reminiscent of Garanimals to prove it.
(OH look, the purple penguins are dating the green flamingos. Isn't that cute? ()Say what? ())

That is nothing at all what I got from the pamphlet. It's a manual for introducing teachers to the concept of addressing their students as more than the strict gender binary. Concept. Concept.

Not once did I get the notion that I must begin calling children purple penguins as a hard and fast rule. As an instructor in a field that is heavily female dominated and also assigns very specific roles to absolutes in performance and choreography, the concept is an important one to begin considering for the next 15-20 years.

 

[Alceste]

I think the harm occurs in pointing out, regardless of any name allowed to take the place of traditional gender identifiers, is that the mere suggestion of a differing policy to address Trans-children, rather than marking the effort as one of inclusion, is actually aligned to not only demarginalize the child labeled something other than boy or girl. But is, per the example of purple penguin, something intended to mock them.
A boy who feels he has a girl inside and dresses the part is then a girl. That's what he's hoping to be identified as in society and according to his augmented appearance. He strives for that acceptance. Calling him a green turkey, if the field is open for any name to apply besides girl, mocks those efforts and the emotions that child is undergoing.

He's a girl. That's how he feels. Calling him something else just puts that hurdle of acceptance and achievement further away from his achieving his goal. Her goal.

That's harmful. He's not a purple penguin. He's a boy who feels like he has a girl inside him. I think the people who came up with this stupid idea have no idea what that means to a child. And that's why they're resorting to something reminiscent of Garanimals to prove it.
(OH look, the purple penguins are dating the green flamingos. Isn't that cute? ()Say what? ())

One more time for the road - the pamphlet does not advise teachers to call children purple penguins instead of students. It only gives "the Purple Penguins" as an example of a hypothetical class name, like a team name.

 

[Buttercup]

One more time for the road - the pamphlet does not advise teachers to call children purple penguins instead of students. It only gives "the Purple Penguins" as an example of a hypothetical class name, like a team name.

I keep following this thread hoping this point will be accepted (by the majority) as stated in the pamplet and not projected onto personal agendas. Seems to be a difficult task.

 

[The Hammer]

If you look at other cultures, it is not at all uncommon to find a third sex, or even more than that. Anthropologically, there is no valid way to defend the statement there are only two genders. Because some people are born intersexed and with a number of chromosome pairings other than XX/XY, the biology of sex cannot be adequately summed up as male or female. Biologically, there is no valid way to defend the statement there are only two sexes.


They aren't trying to eliminate gender though.

You are right, there are more then two genders, I did a little talking with a friend of mine who is more knowledgeable on the subject then I am, and I agree.

But, biologically (as in physical shape), there is generally only two sexes male and female (or hermaphrodite, but I digress). So biologically the classification made sense, maybe it doesn't make sense now, sure.

Because we have a better understanding of the mental aspect of things now. So biologically born male, can still have a biologically hardwired female brain.

Anyways, I have no idea where I was going with that. Just wanted to say I agree and understand.

 

[Alceste]

I keep following this thread hoping this point will be accepted (by the majority) as stated in the pamplet and not projected onto personal agendas. Seems to be a difficult task.

Yeah, unfortunately if you read the pamphlet as the routine, fairly dull bit of optional gender diversity training for teachers it is, there's nothing to get histrionic about. So the gubmint is trying to outlaw gender and make us call kids purple penguins instead of kids! Get the pitchforks! The liberals have gone too far!