Red Mosquito

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Teachers should lie to parents at their own discretion.

To be fair when adults have private conversations with minors about their sex and sexuality and then lie to parents about those conversations, well… it’s raises some red flags.

sex, yes

gender and orientation, no

I’m willing to bet you do not believe that, but instead want teachers to “instill” your value system’s position on these topics while disregarding the culture, religion, and value system of the child. IOW you want the state to parent

That's an oversimplification, but if it makes you feel superior, I'll let you have the win.

Is it? Or is it that this one thing requires such a fragile combination assumptions and edge cases that attempts to generalize it bring the house of cards down? Should teachers lie to parents if they notice other signs of psychological distress like if the kid is cutting? Of if the kid is fainting in class and looking skinny? Of course not. But this one thing seems to create an exception to all other evolved practices and rules. Why? Anyway, gotta go see PJ now so I’ll leave you with the judge’s words:


“The school’s policy is a trifecta of harm: it harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse," U.S. District Court judge Roger Benitez wrote. "It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students."

B wrote:Teachers should lie to parents at their own discretion.

How serious is this post?

I'll rephrase, since I wrote that to trigger conservative snowflakes.

A teacher is under no obligation to make reports to parents about behavior that is not dangerous, disruptive, or detrimental to the student's academics.

B wrote:I'll rephrase, since I wrote that to trigger conservative snowflakes.

A teacher is under no obligation to make reports to parents about behavior that is not dangerous, disruptive, or detrimental to the student's academics.

Ah yes, those irrational conservatives. Totally unreasonable to be concerned about your kid's blue haired teacher calling child protective services on you for not affirming the social transition that you didn't even know about.

Oh wait, that's the law in California.

tragabigzanda wrote:B's not big on nuance.

Is it nuance if schoolboy had to completely rewrite my post in order to knock it down?

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:B's not big on nuance.

Is it nuance if schoolboy had to completely rewrite my post in order to knock it down?

Social transition can't simultaneously be a no big deal secret between a teacher and student and an important mental health intervention the denial of which is tantamount to child abuse. The arguments from the progressive side seem to want it both ways.

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:B's not big on nuance.

Is it nuance if schoolboy had to completely rewrite my post in order to knock it down?

Social transition can't simultaneously be a no big deal secret between a teacher and student and an important mental health intervention the denial of which is tantamount to child abuse. The arguments from the progressive side seem to want it both ways.

It’s rational of you believe that for this one thing the state can secretly assume authority over the child from the parents and still maintain legal indemnity from the consequences for its actions which the Cali courts have suggested is ok in another recent case

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:B's not big on nuance.

Is it nuance if schoolboy had to completely rewrite my post in order to knock it down?

Social transition can't simultaneously be a no big deal secret between a teacher and student and an important mental health intervention the denial of which is tantamount to child abuse. The arguments from the progressive side seem to want it both ways.

It’s rational of you believe that for this one thing the state can secretly assume authority over the child from the parents and still maintain legal indemnity from the consequences for its actions which the Cali courts have suggested is ok in another recent case

Taking kids away from sympathetic parents might be a political liability, hence this half-assed kludge?

I didn't say gender identity was no big deal. I said it is not dangerous, disruptive, or detrimental to a student's academics. The teacher is under no obligation to discuss it with the parent if they or the student would prefer not to.

tragabigzanda wrote:

B wrote:I didn't say gender identity was no big deal. I said it is not dangerous, disruptive, or detrimental to a student's academics. The teacher is under no obligation to discuss it with the parent if they or the student would prefer not to.

wait did you really just argue that gender identity has no bearing on academic performance?

Sure.

Do you worry about or even consider that the state could eventually take more power away from you over your children?

Matters wrote:Do you worry about or even consider that the state could eventually take more power away from you over your children?

Via school teachers? No.

I want my kids to be happy, health, and kind. If they need emotional support, I hope they come to me, but if they feel like that can't, and there is a teacher they feel they can confide in and get support, then I hope that teacher gets a medal.

Matters wrote:Do you worry about or even consider that the state could eventually take more power away from you over your children?

Yes, we must be vigilant.

Imagine if states started passing laws that police pronouns and identity expression in schools, until parents no longer had the right to tell their children it’s ok to be the person you are, you don’t have to hide it or be ashamed.

Truly a nightmare scenario for those who worry about government overreach.

McParadigm wrote:

Matters wrote:Do you worry about or even consider that the state could eventually take more power away from you over your children?

Yes, we must be vigilant.

Imagine if states started passing laws that police pronouns and identity expression in schools, until parents no longer had the right to tell their children it’s ok to be the person you are, you don’t have to hide it or be ashamed.

Truly a nightmare scenario for those who worry about government overreach.

Default pronouns and parental notification are far less of an over reach than default judgements against non affirming parents and the state taking custody of kids.

My buddy in Texas has his kids in private school because the public school puts litter boxes in the bathrooms for kids who identify as cats.

Bammer wrote:My buddy in Texas has his kids in private school because the public school puts litter boxes in the bathrooms for kids who identify as cats.

Pretty sure this has been debunked.


But I'll say going the private school route worked well for us.

blueviper wrote:

Bammer wrote:My buddy in Texas has his kids in private school because the public school puts litter boxes in the bathrooms for kids who identify as cats.

Pretty sure this has been debunked.


But I'll say going the private school route worked well for us.

He is a lawyer. He can’t possibly be lying or embellishing.