Transgender Rights

[Peeps]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

you mean like pull funding for childhood cancer, removing free breakfast/lunch from poor children etc...?

[Self]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

[Bi_3]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

[Peeps]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

now imagine a group of 30 students in a silent prayer, 29 who are catholic and 1 who is muslim. if the 29 object to the muslims presence who's rights should come out on top?

[Bi_3]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

now imagine a group of 30 students in a silent prayer, 29 who are catholic and 1 who is muslim. if the 29 object to the muslims presence who's rights should come out on top?

Not a great analogy as it does not include the fear of predation and the physical vulnerability young women have, but yes this is close to the same issue.

[Self]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

[epilogue]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

You aren't taking about rights. You're taking about prejudice.

[epilogue]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

DING

[Bi_3]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

Except that, as the report explicitly states, the administrators forced the group of objectors to do just that. (It appears one student still refused in spite of the teachers and admins threatening them)

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week," she said, adding that her daughter still "refused to take part."

[Self]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

Except that, as the report explicitly states, the administrators forced the group of objectors to do just that. (It appears one student still refused in spite of the teachers and admins threatening them)

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week," she said, adding that her daughter still "refused to take part."

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

[Bi_3]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

Except that, as the report explicitly states, the administrators forced the group of objectors to do just that. (It appears one student still refused in spite of the teachers and admins threatening them)

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week," she said, adding that her daughter still "refused to take part."

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

Yes, because the admins acted in a way they thought best addressed anti-trans bigotry. The were engaging in trans rights activism.

[Self]

I don't even know what your point is. Are you asking people if they're okay with making kids feel uncomfortable or threatened because they don't hate trans folks? Seems like a really dumb place to start. I'm sure most would agree with the policy, which wasn't followed. Although, the student of the outraged mom was somehow still able to refuse.

[Peeps]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

Except that, as the report explicitly states, the administrators forced the group of objectors to do just that. (It appears one student still refused in spite of the teachers and admins threatening them)

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week," she said, adding that her daughter still "refused to take part."

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

Yes, because the admins acted in a way they thought best addressed anti-trans bigotry. The were engaging in trans rights activism.

all the article states is that the transgendered child is allowed to use the girls locker room and bathroom

at no point does it say that it forced the kids to change because there was a transgendered child in the locker room. it also points out that there are alternative places for the children to change if they are uncomfortable changing in front of others (whether they are cis or not)

[Bi_3]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

Except that, as the report explicitly states, the administrators forced the group of objectors to do just that. (It appears one student still refused in spite of the teachers and admins threatening them)

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week," she said, adding that her daughter still "refused to take part."

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

Yes, because the admins acted in a way they thought best addressed anti-trans bigotry. The were engaging in trans rights activism.

all the article states is that the transgendered child is allowed to use the girls locker room and bathroom

at no point does it say that it forced the kids to change because there was a transgendered child in the locker room. it also points out that there are alternative places for the children to change if they are uncomfortable changing in front of others (whether they are cis or not)

[McParadigm]

This is probably a good litmus test on where you stand on trans rights. In this case, it is alleged that three junior high aged girls refused to change in the girls locker room because a trans-identified classmate was in there. When the complaints went to the school admins, the admins took the girls back to the locker room and made them change while the trans-identified person was still in there.

EDIT: https://www.foxnews.com/sports/illinois ... ns-student

I agree that this is a good litmus test, in that it tests how well a reader’s critical thinking and devotion to information-based-conclusions survives their inherent topical biases.

It is district policy that students not be required to change in front of each other. Any attempt by administrators to force the girl to change in the locker room would violate that policy, whether there was a trans student there or not.

On a purely practical level, there’s no benefit to a school system choosing not to temporarily suspend an accused employee “pending an investigation,” if that employee broke district policy. That’s like a free way to wait out the scandal. It’s standard and ordinary. Has the school district made any sort of an announcement about suspending an employee?

The mother says her daughter “refused to change into her uniform during physical education because a biological male student was present at the time.”

The district says there are private locations available (which is also standard in k-8).

The parent says the situation worsened several days later, when her daughter refused to change into her uniform because the transgender student was present.

Even if you take the alternate changing locations out of the equation…eventually everyone else is changed and gone. What about when all the other students were done changing? Doesn’t sound like she got changed for gym at all. Sounds like she was still refusing.

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week,"

I notice that her language shifts here. The other student is not mentioned at all this time. She doesn’t say that days later they came in and made her change in front of other students. It again sounds like she was refusing to get changed for PE.

“(They said), ‘You have to change, or you are facing disciplinary action,’” she said. “We have audio evidence of that.”

This is from another article about it, but you couldn’t pack more red flags into two sentences.

“You have to change or you face disciplinary actions” is a very different message from “you have to change right here, in front of these people.” In fact, “get changed for gym or I’m sending you to the principal’s office“ is as ordinary as it fucking gets.

And also: what? She has an audio recording of that? Where does this audio recording come from? Because I am now forced to wonder if she didn’t try to secretly record staff in order to prove her point, and instead just end up with something is innocuous as “get changed for PE or you’re in trouble.“

This article is a good litmus test because it is almost entirely reliant on information that is provided by the accuser. You have personally made multiple posts on this forum about how it’s a mistake to draw conclusions before you have all the information. The district has a set policy that says students do not have to change in front of each other, and it has demonstrable physical locations that can be used as alternative changing areas. I noticed the mother never directly says that the staff’s actions violated school policy, or that her daughter was refused the option of alternate changing locations. She never says “they didn’t give my daughter an alternate safe space to change in,“ or “they did not accommodate her discomfort.” And when she talks about her daughter being forced to change, her language changes from “in front of other students“ to not mentioning them anymore more.

[Peeps]

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

How people in power treat children under their protection might be the most important thing of all.

Who would disagree? Is the rage baiting article a litmus test for where anyone stands on trans rights, as you suggested? No.
Let me know when the policy forces kids to change in situations they're not comfortable in, then we can take a fucking test.

What should school administrators do if a large group of students objects to a trans-identified classmate changing in a particular locker room? Imagine a gym class of 30 girls, 29 cis and one trans. If the 29 cis girls object to the presence of the trans student in the locker room, whose rights come out on top?

I don't have to imagine anything, strawman. If any child is uncomfortable, they don't have to change there.

Except that, as the report explicitly states, the administrators forced the group of objectors to do just that. (It appears one student still refused in spite of the teachers and admins threatening them)

"That day, [Assistant Superintendent for Student Services] Joanna Ford, [Assistant Principal] Cathy Van Treese, and multiple teachers all came into the girls locker room, making them change into uniform. This went on all week," she said, adding that her daughter still "refused to take part."

so shitty admin behavior is a good litmus test?

Yes, because the admins acted in a way they thought best addressed anti-trans bigotry. The were engaging in trans rights activism.

all the article states is that the transgendered child is allowed to use the girls locker room and bathroom

at no point does it say that it forced the kids to change because there was a transgendered child in the locker room. it also points out that there are alternative places for the children to change if they are uncomfortable changing in front of others (whether they are cis or not)

but it doesnt say they were forced to change because there was a transgendered in the locker room. its gym class. it says they were forced to change. for all you know they were forced to change because the admins thought GOD told them to make them change

[Bi_3]

but it doesnt say they were forced to change because there was a transgendered in the locker room. its gym class. it says they were forced to change. for all you know they were forced to change because the admins thought GOD told them to make them change

jfc. It clearly implies that the girls had to be forced because of the presence of the trans student. There was a police report and a federal complaint filed so I suspect we will find out if they were lying soon enough. Here's a video of the mom/complainant speaking on the issue:

**warning this tweet contains misgendering**
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1901525043621793884


But i'd to get back to the original issue: What happens or should happen when teachers and administrators act against students (minors) they believe are displaying anti-trans bigotry?

[Self]

I answered. You ignored. Also, what happens to any teacher who violates any policy? There’s your goddamn answer. It isn’t rocket science.

[Self]

tHe LEfT is ForCIng Me to ACcEpt TRanS IdealoGy. iM ThE OPprESsEd!

[Bi_3]

“You have to change or you face disciplinary actions” is a very different message from “you have to change right here, in front of these people.” In fact, “get changed for gym or I’m sending you to the principal’s office“ is as ordinary as it fucking gets.

This is troubling and dismissive of the idea that these girls might actually feel unsafe and violated by the presence of the trans student and also ignores that teachers and admins hold significant power over a child's future prospects. There is no way prevent retribution against a child from school staff if a conflict arises.