Red Mosquito

no body should ever have to get naked in front of anyone, unless it's for medical reasons, if they don't want to .. this isn't even a trans issue

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
“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.

Once again: the district provides alternative locations to change. The district has a policy that no student will be forced to change in front of others, if they do not want to. Either that policy was adhered to, meaning those alternate locations were available to her….or it was not.

And once again: the mother never states that the child was not given the right to use alternative changing locations. That would be the most crucial thing for her to note, because it would demonstrate that the child was trapped in a situation. Instead, while filling out reports and getting up in public to talk about it, she never once thinks it’s worth saying “They wouldn’t let her change somewhere else.” Why is that? Is it because she, in fact, could?

It takes less than three minutes for a group of middle schoolers to change for gym class. A conflict with an administrator takes more than that. Do you think they had the trans student just stand there? Told them they couldn’t leave until they had watched another student change? Two and a half minutes after this conflict begins, all the other students are out of the locker room.

Either more information will come to light that validates her case, or it won’t. But the fact that the district engaged legal counsel and were not advised to put the administrator on leave is telling. The baseline default response to a situation like this is temporary leave and an investigation. That’s just basic ass covering. For a school district to NOT do that suggests that they believe they can prove district policy was not violated.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
“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.

Once again: the district provides alternative locations to change. The district has a policy that no student will be forced to change in front of others, if they do not want to. Either that policy was adhered to, meaning those alternate locations were available to her….or it was not.

And once again: the mother never states that the child was not given the right to use alternative changing locations. That would be the most crucial thing for her to note, because it would demonstrate that the child was trapped in a situation. Instead, while filling out reports and getting up in public to talk about it, she never once thinks it’s worth saying “They wouldn’t let her change somewhere else.” Why is that? Is it because she, in fact, could?

It takes less than three minutes for a group of middle schoolers to change for gym class. A conflict with an administrator takes more than that. Do you think they had the trans student just stand there? Told them they couldn’t leave until they had watched another student change? Two and a half minutes after this conflict begins, all the other students are out of the locker room.

Either more information will come to light that validates her case, or it won’t. But the fact that the district engaged legal counsel and were not advised to put the administrator on leave is telling. The baseline default response to a situation like this is temporary leave and an investigation. That’s just basic ass covering. For a school district to NOT do that suggests that they believe they can prove district policy was not violated.

You're trying to insinuate that the specific event didn't occur as described so you don't have address the quandary it creates if it did, but my ask was what do we do in a situation where teachers and admins behave as trans activists against the wishes of the students.

Here's an interesting talk from a student directly on the locker room subject:

**only url presented to comply with RM rules**

https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/1831064987122774409

And again, for the x-millionth time, I am not siding with anyone here but finding a balance here that protects the well-being of both trans identified students and those opposed to their presence in certain intimate spaces is an actual issue that is pretty significant in the US right now.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
“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.

Once again: the district provides alternative locations to change. The district has a policy that no student will be forced to change in front of others, if they do not want to. Either that policy was adhered to, meaning those alternate locations were available to her….or it was not.

And once again: the mother never states that the child was not given the right to use alternative changing locations. That would be the most crucial thing for her to note, because it would demonstrate that the child was trapped in a situation. Instead, while filling out reports and getting up in public to talk about it, she never once thinks it’s worth saying “They wouldn’t let her change somewhere else.” Why is that? Is it because she, in fact, could?

It takes less than three minutes for a group of middle schoolers to change for gym class. A conflict with an administrator takes more than that. Do you think they had the trans student just stand there? Told them they couldn’t leave until they had watched another student change? Two and a half minutes after this conflict begins, all the other students are out of the locker room.

Either more information will come to light that validates her case, or it won’t. But the fact that the district engaged legal counsel and were not advised to put the administrator on leave is telling. The baseline default response to a situation like this is temporary leave and an investigation. That’s just basic ass covering. For a school district to NOT do that suggests that they believe they can prove district policy was not violated.

You're trying to insinuate that the specific event didn't occur as described so you don't have address the quandary it creates if it did, but my ask was what do we do in a situation where teachers and admins behave as trans activists against the wishes of the students.

I’m not trying to insinuate at all. I’m stating it directly: the information that is provided here does not, by itself, convince me.

But I am also stating that if more information comes to light, and if that information suggests the student was not allowed the option of an alternative changing spot, then it is clear cut that the administrator violated school district policy and that is unacceptable. This person should lose their job.

The student being trans doesn’t make it a worse violation, any more than it makes it better. The trans aspect doesn’t alter the case at all. If the administrator forced a student to change in front of other students, they have violated school district policy and created harm no matter who or why.

It wouldn’t matter if the other student was a heterosexual girl. If a student said “I don’t want to change in front of this person,” and they made them change in front of this person, that is a violation of school district policy and a creation of harm.

But the person doing the accusing here does nothing to demonstrate or prove the case that their child was not given the option of another place to change.

And a school district does not, I promise you, go to bat for teachers unless it thinks it can win.

And Occam’s razor tells me there’s a reason I haven’t heard “my child was not allowed to choose a different location to change in.“

There doesn’t need to be any discussion of it beyond that, because the answer to “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of a trans student“ is the same as the answer to the question “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of any student?” You should fire them.

as i said at the top of this page

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
“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.

Once again: the district provides alternative locations to change. The district has a policy that no student will be forced to change in front of others, if they do not want to. Either that policy was adhered to, meaning those alternate locations were available to her….or it was not.

And once again: the mother never states that the child was not given the right to use alternative changing locations. That would be the most crucial thing for her to note, because it would demonstrate that the child was trapped in a situation. Instead, while filling out reports and getting up in public to talk about it, she never once thinks it’s worth saying “They wouldn’t let her change somewhere else.” Why is that? Is it because she, in fact, could?

It takes less than three minutes for a group of middle schoolers to change for gym class. A conflict with an administrator takes more than that. Do you think they had the trans student just stand there? Told them they couldn’t leave until they had watched another student change? Two and a half minutes after this conflict begins, all the other students are out of the locker room.

Either more information will come to light that validates her case, or it won’t. But the fact that the district engaged legal counsel and were not advised to put the administrator on leave is telling. The baseline default response to a situation like this is temporary leave and an investigation. That’s just basic ass covering. For a school district to NOT do that suggests that they believe they can prove district policy was not violated.

You're trying to insinuate that the specific event didn't occur as described so you don't have address the quandary it creates if it did, but my ask was what do we do in a situation where teachers and admins behave as trans activists against the wishes of the students.

I’m not trying to insinuate at all. I’m stating it directly: the information that is provided here does not, by itself, convince me.

But I am also stating that if more information comes to light, and if that information suggests the student was not allowed the option of an alternative changing spot, then it is clear cut that the administrator violated school district policy and that is unacceptable. This person should lose their job.

The student being trans doesn’t make it a worse violation, any more than it makes it better. The trans aspect doesn’t alter the case at all. If the administrator forced a student to change in front of other students, they have violated school district policy and created harm no matter who or why.

It wouldn’t matter if the other student was a heterosexual girl. If a student said “I don’t want to change in front of this person,” and they made them change in front of this person, that is a violation of school district policy and a creation of harm.

But the person doing the accusing here does nothing to demonstrate or prove the case that their child was not given the option of another place to change.

And a school district does not, I promise you, go to bat for teachers unless it thinks it can win.

And Occam’s razor tells me there’s a reason I haven’t heard “my child was not allowed to choose a different location to change in.“

There doesn’t need to be any discussion of it beyond that, because the answer to “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of a trans student“ is the same as the answer to the question “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of any student?” You should fire them.

It is different because we can quickly arrive at scaled noncompliance, like should a group of students say "no, we will not change elsewhere, they will" as I believe was done in Texas last month. I would say there is a problem here and the problem is closer to the implementation of racial integration than you are allowing for.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
“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.

Once again: the district provides alternative locations to change. The district has a policy that no student will be forced to change in front of others, if they do not want to. Either that policy was adhered to, meaning those alternate locations were available to her….or it was not.

And once again: the mother never states that the child was not given the right to use alternative changing locations. That would be the most crucial thing for her to note, because it would demonstrate that the child was trapped in a situation. Instead, while filling out reports and getting up in public to talk about it, she never once thinks it’s worth saying “They wouldn’t let her change somewhere else.” Why is that? Is it because she, in fact, could?

It takes less than three minutes for a group of middle schoolers to change for gym class. A conflict with an administrator takes more than that. Do you think they had the trans student just stand there? Told them they couldn’t leave until they had watched another student change? Two and a half minutes after this conflict begins, all the other students are out of the locker room.

Either more information will come to light that validates her case, or it won’t. But the fact that the district engaged legal counsel and were not advised to put the administrator on leave is telling. The baseline default response to a situation like this is temporary leave and an investigation. That’s just basic ass covering. For a school district to NOT do that suggests that they believe they can prove district policy was not violated.

You're trying to insinuate that the specific event didn't occur as described so you don't have address the quandary it creates if it did, but my ask was what do we do in a situation where teachers and admins behave as trans activists against the wishes of the students.

I’m not trying to insinuate at all. I’m stating it directly: the information that is provided here does not, by itself, convince me.

But I am also stating that if more information comes to light, and if that information suggests the student was not allowed the option of an alternative changing spot, then it is clear cut that the administrator violated school district policy and that is unacceptable. This person should lose their job.

The student being trans doesn’t make it a worse violation, any more than it makes it better. The trans aspect doesn’t alter the case at all. If the administrator forced a student to change in front of other students, they have violated school district policy and created harm no matter who or why.

It wouldn’t matter if the other student was a heterosexual girl. If a student said “I don’t want to change in front of this person,” and they made them change in front of this person, that is a violation of school district policy and a creation of harm.

But the person doing the accusing here does nothing to demonstrate or prove the case that their child was not given the option of another place to change.

And a school district does not, I promise you, go to bat for teachers unless it thinks it can win.

And Occam’s razor tells me there’s a reason I haven’t heard “my child was not allowed to choose a different location to change in.“

There doesn’t need to be any discussion of it beyond that, because the answer to “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of a trans student“ is the same as the answer to the question “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of any student?” You should fire them.

It is different because we can quickly arrive at scaled noncompliance, like should a group of students say "no, we will not change elsewhere, they will" as I believe was done in Texas last month. I would say there is a problem here and the problem is closer to the implementation of racial integration than you are allowing for.

Am I misunderstanding the meaning of the term “racial integration” here?

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:
“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.

Once again: the district provides alternative locations to change. The district has a policy that no student will be forced to change in front of others, if they do not want to. Either that policy was adhered to, meaning those alternate locations were available to her….or it was not.

And once again: the mother never states that the child was not given the right to use alternative changing locations. That would be the most crucial thing for her to note, because it would demonstrate that the child was trapped in a situation. Instead, while filling out reports and getting up in public to talk about it, she never once thinks it’s worth saying “They wouldn’t let her change somewhere else.” Why is that? Is it because she, in fact, could?

It takes less than three minutes for a group of middle schoolers to change for gym class. A conflict with an administrator takes more than that. Do you think they had the trans student just stand there? Told them they couldn’t leave until they had watched another student change? Two and a half minutes after this conflict begins, all the other students are out of the locker room.

Either more information will come to light that validates her case, or it won’t. But the fact that the district engaged legal counsel and were not advised to put the administrator on leave is telling. The baseline default response to a situation like this is temporary leave and an investigation. That’s just basic ass covering. For a school district to NOT do that suggests that they believe they can prove district policy was not violated.

You're trying to insinuate that the specific event didn't occur as described so you don't have address the quandary it creates if it did, but my ask was what do we do in a situation where teachers and admins behave as trans activists against the wishes of the students.

I’m not trying to insinuate at all. I’m stating it directly: the information that is provided here does not, by itself, convince me.

But I am also stating that if more information comes to light, and if that information suggests the student was not allowed the option of an alternative changing spot, then it is clear cut that the administrator violated school district policy and that is unacceptable. This person should lose their job.

The student being trans doesn’t make it a worse violation, any more than it makes it better. The trans aspect doesn’t alter the case at all. If the administrator forced a student to change in front of other students, they have violated school district policy and created harm no matter who or why.

It wouldn’t matter if the other student was a heterosexual girl. If a student said “I don’t want to change in front of this person,” and they made them change in front of this person, that is a violation of school district policy and a creation of harm.

But the person doing the accusing here does nothing to demonstrate or prove the case that their child was not given the option of another place to change.

And a school district does not, I promise you, go to bat for teachers unless it thinks it can win.

And Occam’s razor tells me there’s a reason I haven’t heard “my child was not allowed to choose a different location to change in.“

There doesn’t need to be any discussion of it beyond that, because the answer to “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of a trans student“ is the same as the answer to the question “what should you do if an administrator forces a child to change in front of any student?” You should fire them.

It is different because we can quickly arrive at scaled noncompliance, like should a group of students say "no, we will not change elsewhere, they will" as I believe was done in Texas last month. I would say there is a problem here and the problem is closer to the implementation of racial integration than you are allowing for.

Am I misunderstanding the meaning of the term “racial integration” here?

I mean desegregating schools.

Then it is what I presumed, but I am no closer to understanding. I’m sorry if I am being obtuse. Would you please explain your meaning further?

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:ah, i see. to you, this is just a theoretical case study, where no nuance is present.

I think sometimes people use terms like "rooted in" and "nuance" or try to reposition the discussion as an indirect accusation against the person bringing it up to avoid addressing the difficult to reconcile dogmatism in their worldviews and how those views operate in the real world.

Nah. Looks like you’ve been sorted out while I was slumbering anyway.

man, can we segregate before we worry about desegregation?

jim crow, but we call it ru paul

It's feeling like we need two threads: "Trans Rights" and "Bigotry Excuses"

I mean, just look at the mom too. And it’s in Deerfield, one of the great white flight suburbs of Chicago.

McParadigm wrote:Then it is what I presumed, but I am no closer to understanding. I’m sorry if I am being obtuse. Would you please explain your meaning further?

I am not explaining it well.

The allegations from the article are illustrative of a conflict where we saw a rapid change in social policy in one direction, in which student lead and other activism pushed school admins and policymakers to quickly get onboard with gender acceptance issues, and now we are seeing things start to swing in the opposite direction in which student lead and other activism is pushing school admins and policymakers to get off-board with gender acceptance issues. There will be more frequent conflicts between young people who are vocally opposed to trans kids in female spaces that will run directly into the trans acceptance policies that has been embedded in schools over the last decade. How the teachers and admins react to this is going to be very important both for safety and political power in the near future.

I think the current state of the bigger issue of trans youth acceptance is similar to desegregation when we had conflict between federal, state, and school policies mixed in with a lot of fear and prejudice complicating the issue. There will need to be some level "this is how it is now, get over it", but it's risky with Trump/MAGA in power. It could blow up and send support for youth struggling with identity back decades and the feds and Supreme Court won't be on the liberal side this time.

is the issue here with the reporting, maybe? "forced the girls to undress IN FRONT of the trans student" is potentially very misleading. i highly doubt the teachers brought the girls over to the trans kid and had them disrobe so the trans kid could watch. they were probably in different areas of the locker room entirely.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Then it is what I presumed, but I am no closer to understanding. I’m sorry if I am being obtuse. Would you please explain your meaning further?

I am not explaining it well.

The allegations from the article are illustrative of a conflict where we saw a rapid change in social policy in one direction, in which student lead and other activism pushed school admins and policymakers to quickly get onboard with gender acceptance issues, and now we are seeing things start to swing in the opposite direction in which student lead and other activism is pushing school admins and policymakers to get off-board with gender acceptance issues. There will be more frequent conflicts between young people who are vocally opposed to trans kids in female spaces that will run directly into the trans acceptance policies that has been embedded in schools over the last decade. How the teachers and admins react to this is going to be very important both for safety and political power in the near future.

I think the current state of the bigger issue of trans youth acceptance is similar to desegregation when we had conflict between federal, state, and school policies mixed in with a lot of fear and prejudice complicating the issue. There will need to be some level "this is how it is now, get over it", but it's risky with Trump/MAGA in power. It could blow up and send support for youth struggling with identity back decades and the feds and Supreme Court won't be on the liberal side this time.

you explained it fine. They just want it to be about something else.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Then it is what I presumed, but I am no closer to understanding. I’m sorry if I am being obtuse. Would you please explain your meaning further?

I am not explaining it well.

The allegations from the article are illustrative of a conflict where we saw a rapid change in social policy in one direction, in which student lead and other activism pushed school admins and policymakers to quickly get onboard with gender acceptance issues, and now we are seeing things start to swing in the opposite direction in which student lead and other activism is pushing school admins and policymakers to get off-board with gender acceptance issues. There will be more frequent conflicts between young people who are vocally opposed to trans kids in female spaces that will run directly into the trans acceptance policies that has been embedded in schools over the last decade. How the teachers and admins react to this is going to be very important both for safety and political power in the near future.

I think the current state of the bigger issue of trans youth acceptance is similar to desegregation when we had conflict between federal, state, and school policies mixed in with a lot of fear and prejudice complicating the issue. There will need to be some level "this is how it is now, get over it", but it's risky with Trump/MAGA in power. It could blow up and send support for youth struggling with identity back decades and the feds and Supreme Court won't be on the liberal side this time.

Thank you. I don’t think I disagree with any of that. If I do, it is measured in single digit degrees.

I’ll be honest: I don’t think a lot about the trans issue these days….because I think it’s future is fully slaved to the broader conflict that is going on around us.

I am, I confess, someone who believes that the end ambition of the MAGA movement is competitive authoritarianism and control. A faux America, with predetermined elections, where the power of the state is weaponized to hermetically seal (and enforce) specific cultural rules. You are welcome to assign me any number of derangement syndromes for that, if you’d like. But when people tell me what they intend to do and then start to do it, I believe them.

In that event, I do not honestly foresee any future for trans rights in America. It is, sadly, a moot point.

I don’t often think about what trans rights might look like in a post-MAGA world, either, because I don’t like thinking about what the journey between here and there might entail.

But I do think that a school district writing and consistently enforcing a clear policy that students do not ever have to change in front of other students if they do not want to, and then providing facilities to accommodate that circumstance, is about as good as start as you’re ever gonna get.

america is so repressed, it's hard to believe locker rooms were a thing in the first place.

a holdover from the old world, i suppose.