I did not write the title -- still not lies.
Kid say kicked out for gender questioning. Teacher indicates kicked out for being disruptive.

Its the kids video - he get to title it.


On big issues like this ( ie debating on school lunch) , if one believes that school policy is wrong , is not acceptable to speak up?

Granted a better forum would be a school board meeting.

Bottom line the teacher is afraid of loosing his job and hence pushes the position of national policy.

That depends, if we're talking sex, then yes there is only male and female. Gender is about more than just biology so there can be more than just two.

https://www.apnews.com/2a67da6515aa48e68e56cd97817b097a

Dishonest stating it in a way that strongly implies he was kicked out for his opinion, and hides from the fact it was for speaking out repeatedly, disruptively.
That's a lie by obfuscation.

Did you even watch it?
The teacher was clear, he was kicked out for continuing to argue after being allowed to state his opinion...a right he did not have but a privilege he was granted. That is disruptive, as is requiring individual attention a second time to discuss the same thing.

He was kicked out for repeating his opinion, disrupting class and the teacher.

The issue is being disruptive in class, thinking his uninformed opinion should shout down an informed one from the teacher, an opinion held by the school board and codified in the rules of conduct.

Regardless of what the douchebag kid thinks on this matter, he has no right to disrupt the class by debating policy.
The kid is free to think, but not to disrupt class. He may express his thoughts....at home or in open public forums, not class.

If you defy school policy, expect to reap the rewards of being removed from school and all that comes with that. Duh. Challenge, sure, appropriately, in appropriate venues and times, like a school board or PTA meeting, not during class. If you wish to challenge it inappropriately and disruptively, don't think standing on the right to speak gives you immunity from other rules or repercussions. That's not how it works. It's not an absolute right....I'll prove it, go argue gender in a federal court that's in session, see how long you remain standing and unincarcerated. Better yet, go argue something not insanely pro Trump at a Trump rally, see how many teeth you have in the morning...If you see morning.

Blond and blonde are not interchangeable.

She is most certainly blonde. (it's one of the few gendered adjectives in English)

When science becomes political it becomes corrupted and hence discredited.

Global warmer/gender/ abortion are the best examples.

I'm pretty sure that the women paid twenty cents on the dollar comment is highly debatable. My understanding was that when you actually compared apples to apples it was around six or seven percent. Still not zero where it should be but also not twenty as was stated. (edit) John says 4-8% https://videosift.com/video/Is-the-Gender-Pay-Gap-Real

And just for fun i wanted to check the prices myself for the items in the video.

The CVS Menstrual pain medication they compared are NOT the same.
The menstrual product has Acetaminophen AND two additional ingredients
- https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-menstrual-complete-menstrual-relief-caplets-prodid-456231?skuid=456231
- https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-extra-strength-pain-relief-acetaminophen-caplets-500mg-24-ct-prodid-686584?skuid=686584

The razors are not on CVS website but are on BICS website. Comparing prices of the two products shown in the video, the "womens" one was actually cheaper by fifty cents. Also can't be sure that the razors they are comparing are exactly the same. Probably close enough though.
Womens Soleil Twilight https://razor.shopbic.com/womens/products?blades=3-4+blades&sortBy=price-asc
Mens Flex 3
https://razor.shopbic.com/mens/products?blades=3-4+blades&sortBy=rating

The same kids snorkel i found on Amazon. The one shop who actually has it in pink and also has two other colors are selling them for the same price.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01NC315ML/ref=olp_twister_child?ie=UTF8&mv_color_name=1

The baby walker i found on Wallmarts site, and the pink one cost more. The other has been discounted from its original price.
pink https://www.walmart.com/ip/Delta-Children-Lil-Fun-Walker-Choose-Your-Color/50862055?selected=true
blue/green https://www.walmart.com/ip/Delta-Children-Lil-Fun-Walker-Choose-Your-Color/50862051?selected=true

The Underwear were as stated in the video. Different quantity at the same price.
https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-women-s-underwear-maximum-absorbency-xl-lavender-24-ct-prodid-830474
https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-men-s-underwear-maximum-absorbency-l-xl-32ct-prodid-842939

Well that was a fun little project

A classic. Almost as good as...

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Gender-Targeted-Advertising

Gender-Targeted Advertising has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

IYou don't want people looking at anyoneyou and falsely judging themyou as scum on the basis of their genderthis ad.

The ad is just a big yawn for me. The symptom of people still using generalizations and stereotypes to classify a group of people and saying it's "caring, loving, intelligent and brave" is repulsive to me, and needs to be called out. That doesn't hold ONLY when it's blacks, mexicans, muslims or women being targeted but yes, even if it's whites or men.

@BSR

I guess even with my edit my last sentence was unclear. I’ll try and straighten that out, I meant to say I want people to stop judging each other by race, gender or any other ‘team’ membership mentality.
Judging people based upon unalterable traits like race and gender is wrong.
Judging people based upon identity with a religion, polticial party our other group, generally bad still and better to look at individual opinions. Some leeway obviously as there is an element of choice too so if your anti-vax, yeah I’ve fot some opinoons on some of your life choices.
Judging people based ipon their behaviours and choices, this is fundamental and necessary. We should err on kindness to one another, but that includes judging cruel and violent people and protecting their victims.

As relates to this commercial, it clearly generalizes most(arguably all) men as complicit with the peoblem. Thats wrong!

I was raised to respect other people, regardless of race, gender, creed or religion. I was taught that it was right to not give differential treatment to others because of race and gender, and to reserve differential treatment for other people facing differential circumstance, ability or behaviour. I believe in these as important fundamental values, and I consider those values worth defending.

When I see somebody painting an entire race or gender as the 'same' and as a problem, I get defensive of them. Here's how the commercial portrays men:
"It's been going on far too long... Making the same old excuses"
Entire line of men ALL chanting boys will be boys
"But something finally changed...And there will be no going back"

That isn't just a statement against bad behavior of men, it's a statement that ALL men have been participating in or excusing the bad behavior. At best, the message is urging men as needing to take an especial roll in rooting out violent and sexual harassment. That's identical to the logic of urging menmuslims as needing to take an especial roll in rooting out terrorismviolent and sexual harassment. Albeit, arguably worse in that your religion is at least a choice(trigger non-binary proponents).

I thought they should have included Trump publicly bragging about....well, every single bad behavior mentioned and then some.
He is in the position of exemplar in chief but has utterly failed to live up to it for even a single second. This could/should be directed right at him.

It did seem to me they directed this at all men, a few of whom they think act appropriately sometimes. I identify with the guys stepping in, and I still think this ad targeted my gender, not a few bad actors, and much worse it implied these bad behaviors aren't perpetrated by women, which is just ridiculous and false.

The difference is whether they are punching up or down, or at least should be, even if local laws don't reflect it.

Does Israel need defending? Are trans people, gay people, etc, discriminated against routinely? Then it is arguable that it is the employer's duty to his workplace environment to rid themselves of forces hostile to gender and racial diversity.

So if the person above had been actively maligning Jews, for example, it would of course be a fireable offence, but requiring them to sign some sort of pro-Israeli document is demeaning, even if you are not particularly anti-Israel or anti-Judaism.

I only ever took a cursory look at that whole case too, but didn't his memo stem out of internal meetings and training specifically with the purpose of discussing the gender gap/pay disparity? If your specifically asking for your employees opinions and holding discussions with them on political issues, the cases have more similarity.