JonnyF

It's fine if you can't answer.

No you said why they celebrate. Not why they are proud. Gay people are born gay, it is not something that is achieved through hard work and diligence throughout the course of their lives. Much like being straight, black, white, Thai, British etc. It is not something you have control over, therefore being proud of it seems strange to me (and to many gay people who don't need to celebrate it but just get on with their lives). It seems you think some immutable characteristics are more worthy of pride than others. For example, someone being proud to be a black, gay, Rwandan female would be fine? But someone who was proud to be a straight, white, British male would not be cool?

Evidently.

What's to be proud of? It's just an immutable characteristic. Like being white, female, straight, Chinese or whatever. It's nothing to be proud of. And nothing to be ashamed of. Douglas Murray says it best (he's gay by the way).

Actually most of the gay community is happy to just get on with their lives. They do so with very few issues but you never hear from them as they are busy getting on with their lives. It's only a vocal minority that wants to shout it from the rooftops. These individuals tend to be the ones who have the most problems since generally most people nowadays don't care if someone is gay or not. I think that is what this minority hates the most, they don't want to blend in - they want to stand out, to be controversial, to be 'special' and being gay isn't really that special any more, it is just another immutable characteristic.

You've missed the point again. The curriculum/content might be LGBT issues. The teachers views on those issues might be completely different and thus the way they teach might be different. Even if they are prepared to teach it in the first place might be an issue. Here is one example where a teacher was sacked for her Christian beliefs and reluctance to teach these issues. Another good reason why this should be kept out of schools. Teachers shouldn't be sacked because their Christian or Muslim beliefs are not in line with the latest Woke trend. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/christian-school-worker-loses-tribunal-case-against-sacking A livelihood and career ruined. Totally unnecessary.

Nope. The 'gay' slur was used, but it was predominantly used on boys who were not perceived to be gay and it wasn't used in a malicious way. It was a throwaway term used among friends, like 'that was a bit gay' if someone did something goofy like missed an open goal during a game of football. For example, as a teenage skateboarder there was a vert trick called the "gay twist" which was a 360 starting backwards where you grabbed the board (it was 'gay' because you couldn't do it without grabbing the board, if you didn't grab the board it was called "The Caballerial" after the inventer of the trick). So the term was used, but not maliciously and not on effeminate boys. I suspect that had there been LGBT flags everywhere and gay pride marches then the issue of the various forms of sexuality would have been at the fore more than it was. After all, we were just kids and fortunately skating, football, music, video games etc were more important to us than whether someone was LGBTQIA+.

How so? You don't think a 20 something, far left, Pansexual teacher would have a different stance on teaching homosexuality to children than a 60 year old, ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian? Of course the teachers own viewpoint is critical to how the subject would be approached. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Not in my experience. We suspected a few kids at school were gay but the conversation never arose in a public setting and they weren't bullied. Unfortunately, ginger kids were, fat kids were, unattractive kids were, but thankfully I never remember gay kids being bullied. Now, had it been raised in class every 5 minutes, gay pride marches, photos of homsexual couples on the walls, LGBT flags everywhere then maybe it would have been different... Like I said, keep it out of the classroom and teach Maths, English etc. There's no need for compulsory lessons on the myriad of options of sexual orientation for kids. A child doesn't go to school to learn about Pansexuality, non binary, trans sexuality etc.

Sounds like he wants to charge more, without improving the quality of the product. Hanging electricity cables, Mangey Soi dogs, dirty beaches, smog, taxis with crazy drivers and no seatbelts etc. all offered at a premium price. Good luck with that Anutin.

No, I don't. Like in the terrible experience of the poster I was responding to, the bullying started because the issue of homosexuality was raised in the classroom. Had they been teaching Maths, the issue would never have even been raised. If you think the best way to stop bullying of gay kids is to keep raising the subject of homosexuality in the classroom then I would strongly disagree. It's like the proponents of critical race theory who think the best way to tackle racism is to keep reminding people of the fact they are inherently different because they belong to a certain racial group and assuming (often negative) things about them based on that race. It's nonsense, it doesn't belong in the classroom, certainly as a compulsory element. At a push I guess extra curricular, optional modules for this could be offered (subject to parental consent) but even that is not necessary IMO.

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from my post? Maybe you should read it again ????.

I'm sorry for your experience. This is an excellent example of why schools should stick to teaching Maths and English and not try to 'educate' kids about matters relating to sexuality. It's too open to be influenced by the personal beliefs of the teacher for one thing. Whether it's a left wing loon telling the kids how great/cool it is to be gay and that there's no such thing as a woman, or whether it's some hardcore Christian fundamentalist telling the kids it is evil and they'll go to hell, both are potentially damaging to kids and opens up the environment for bullying and ridiculing of the minority by the majority. Had the class you describe not taken place, you could have avoided the painful experience altogether. I support keeping these discussions out of the classroom.

I was there on Friday night. It was very quiet. Obviously not all arrivals are tourists either. Case in point, I was returning from a business trip to Australia and the couple next to me on the plane were travelling on to London 4 hours later for a wedding. 3 arrivals, but no tourists.

Well seeing as only women (adult human females) have a menopause, it's kind of ridiculous. I find it quite misogynistic actually. There is nothing childish or crass about pointing out the established facts of human biology. Nothing childish or crass about the word Fat either. Just like there is nothing sophisticated/virtuous about avoiding addressing legitimate points by pretending to be offended by everyday language.

Wow, he looks like one of those guys at the Parramatta train station asking for loose change. Hopefully he's OK health wise, he's probably at a much healthier weight now assuming the weight loss is for the right reasons. He looked a bit ridiculous before, like he was trying a bit too hard to look tough (like many weightlifter/bodybuilder types).

Wasn't talking to you.

It seems I've upset you. My deepest, most sincere apologies. Whilst the comment was of course somewhat tongue in cheek, on a more serious note I am sure you are aware that certain NHS departments have dropped the use of the word Woman in certain circumstances, to be replaced with gender neutral language such as 'people with a cervix'. So it is indeed quite possible that the term 'Boy/Girl' would offend someone. They might prefer 'adolescant with a penis/cervix' or something similarly crass. I'd have thought you'd be supportive of such gender neutral language? Me? Call me old fashioned but I prefer the terms Boy/Girl.

From the school website... Essentially ensuring that boys* can wear skirts and girls* can wear trousers. I'd say that's probably qualifies as Woke. Not hardcore 'mad as a box of frogs' Woke, but Woke nonetheless. Shorts being banned in 30 degree plus temperatures definitely qualifies as stupid. * Unreserved apologies if the use of the term 'boys' and 'girls' hurt anyone's feelings. Alternative gender neutral terms are available at all good echo chambers ????.

The parents have objected to it and the policy is being reviewed, and rightly so. It's stupid.

So much negativity. Bangkok is a great city. I absolutely love living here. Just spent a week in Sydney and it was sterile, expensive and boring in comparison.

The location in question had average temperatures in the 20's, with one day over 30. See BKK Brian's link. I shouldn't really have to explain this, but just because it's cooled down now, doesn't mean it wasn't hot before ????.

'PC' was directed at BKK Brian, not the school policy. Are you being disingenuous or is this concept too complicated for you to grasp? As for the school uniform, we all know what it means. Maybe you were left behind while trying to work out the 'PC' comment, but the discussion had advanced somewhat to a debate about the choice (or lack thereof) of uniform. Presumably you'd be OK with whatever the principal decided on, irrespective of the discomfort to the children? Seems a bit of an authoritarian stance for a so called Liberal, no?

Not at all. Read the thread. I said the policy was stupid, irrespective of whether it was Woke or not. 'PC' was a comment directed at another poster who refused to answer a point I was making because I used the word Fat. Nice try though...

Sure, I'll tell you. June was extremely hot. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/17/heatwave-alert-uk-hottest-day-year-met-office-england-london-nhs#:~:text=Heatwave alert as parts of UK experience hottest day of 2022 so far,-Met Office issues&text=A level three heatwave alert,of the year so far.