Parents Rights On Transgender Policy

[esmith]

And how does that relate to a child being transgender?

This is not about being transgender it is about parents being informed by schools that their child is having an issue, whether it is transgender or something else.

 

[Koldo]

This is not about being transgender it is about parents being informed by schools that their child is having an issue, whether it is transgender or something else.

Great, but who said the child is having an issue?

 

[Father Heathen]

School contacts parents:

Dad: "I'm gonna beat the queerness outta you, boy!" *takes off belt*
Mom: "...and I'll pray over you to drive the devil out!" *pulls out bible*
Dad & Mom: "We're correcting our child. We're good parents."

 

[esmith]

School contacts parents:

Dad: "I'm gonna beat the queerness outta you, boy!" *takes off belt*
Mom: "...and I'll pray over you to drive the devil out!" *pulls out bible*
Dad & Mom: "We're correcting our child. We're good parents."

School notices subject boys condition at a point, contacts local authorities about possible child abuse, local law enforcement along with CPS goes to home.

 

[wellwisher]

This is an issue created by fuzzy dice casino science. The fuzzy dice data of statistical studies allows politics to overlap and lead science based on the fuzzy subjective standards of politics. The teachers do not wish to inform the parents since parents will not make the conditioning protocol easier; sand in the gears of the self fulfilling prophesy.

Fuzzy dice science is never sure thing. This adds subjectivity and allows politics to run scams. If we get rid of the prestige of fuzzy dice, many bad Lefty political ideas can be nipped in the bud.

Transgender is part of a long anticipated sterilization project, from at least the 1960's, that conditions children to self sterilize by becoming nonbiological. Only biological males and females can breed. Gender choice can detach one from the ability to breed. I am not sure why the Left is self sterilizing, other than there is an unconscious need to remove their own genes from the human breeding pool.

This may actually come from the repression of religion. In reincarnation, one is reborn again and again, until you have satisfied the needs of the wisdom of life. At that point, you get a final incarnation into paradise. The Lefties are arrogant and may think they are so smart, this is their last incarnation; fully evolved, but they cannot think in term of religion. This push is sort of reincarnating into another gender, via technology, leading to an imaginary image of paradise. However, this paradise image does not last and problems appear; Satan Subroutine.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Depends on what you are talking about when you say 'control'. The term is vague and wide enough to cover both the actions necessary actions to ensure the child's survival/well-being and the overreaching actions that only serve to satisfy the parents' whims even at the cost of creating a dysfunctional person.

If by 'control', you are referring strictly to the former, then we agree that such 'control' should be used.

Indeed, if I quote myself from earlier in this thread from a post to you, ''Control' is obviously a word with somewhat wide-ranging intent. At some point on that spectrum, the parent should NOT control their child.'

So...yeah.

Actually, you didn't even properly answer what I asked, but I just let it be. To substantiate a claim is to provide proof that something is the case. You didn't provide proof that parents have some/any sort of fundamental right, which is what I asked substantiation for. If anything, you redirected the subject towards reponsibilities.

Oh, that old chestnut again. This will be interesting. Taking this at face value, refer below;

Your duties and rights as a parent

The law that defines the duties of parents to their children and also the rights parents have in raising children according to their own values and beliefs

www.facs.nsw.gov.au

Quote from source :
As a parent you also have rights.

The law allows parents to bring up their children according to their own values and beliefs. Decisions such as religion, education, discipline, medical treatment and where the child lives will not be interfered with unless there are good reasons or the child’s well-being is at risk - for example, if there is abuse, if the child is not receiving education or necessary medical treatments.

Working parents have the right to child-care services and to access information on payments and services for which they are eligible.

However, the concept of parents’ rights does not include the right to have custody or contact with your children, for example after separation. In situations where parental responsibility may be altered, the law requires the best interest of the child to be the paramount consideration.

In which case, one should first talk to the child then and if the child says it doesn't want the parents to know, that is sufficient reason to suspect they would provide harm rather than support.

No it's not.
It could sensibly lead to a follow up question of 'why?'.

Assuming a parent would cause harm without a history of harm, a claim being made, or behavioural patterns indicative of harm is unwarranted.

 

[Koldo]

Indeed, if I quote myself from earlier in this thread from a post to you, ''Control' is obviously a word with somewhat wide-ranging intent. At some point on that spectrum, the parent should NOT control their child.'

So...yeah.

Oh, that old chestnut again. This will be interesting. Taking this at face value, refer below;

Your duties and rights as a parent

The law that defines the duties of parents to their children and also the rights parents have in raising children according to their own values and beliefs

www.facs.nsw.gov.au

Quote from source :
As a parent you also have rights.

The law allows parents to bring up their children according to their own values and beliefs. Decisions such as religion, education, discipline, medical treatment and where the child lives will not be interfered with unless there are good reasons or the child’s well-being is at risk - for example, if there is abuse, if the child is not receiving education or necessary medical treatments.

Working parents have the right to child-care services and to access information on payments and services for which they are eligible.

However, the concept of parents’ rights does not include the right to have custody or contact with your children, for example after separation. In situations where parental responsibility may be altered, the law requires the best interest of the child to be the paramount consideration.

How do you understand the concept of a fundamental right? Are you approaching this from a jusnaturalist, juspositivist, or some other angle?

No it's not.
It could sensibly lead to a follow up question of 'why?'.

Assuming a parent would cause harm without a history of harm, a claim being made, or behavioural patterns indicative of harm is unwarranted.

But one doesn't have to assume a parent would cause harm. One only has to err on the side of caution. On what grounds would you presume to know better than the children themselves about their own family dynamics?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How do you understand the concept of a fundamental right? Are you approaching this from a jusnaturalist, juspositivist, or some other angle?

Yep, I figured you'd take this off at an angle.
If you want to have a theoretical discussion on what right a parents should hold, and what is the basis for those, that's fine.
Asking for proof that they actually hold those 'fundamental rights' is a little rich in that scenario though.

It's not 'proof' you are after, since it is not possible to 'prove' the existence of 'fundamental rights', whatever they might be in your opinion.

So, for the purpose of this discussion...given that you were asking for proof...I took your question at face value and offered proof that these rights exist in a legal sense. There is obviously a line at which the rights of the child supercede the rights of the parents, for example where there is good reason to believe the well-being of the child is at risk.

If you want a more theoretical discussion on the existence of parental rights, you're going to have to do more work framing it than asking for 'proof'.

But one doesn't have to assume a parent would cause harm. One only has to err on the side of caution. On what grounds would you presume to know better than the children themselves about their own family dynamics?

The same child who has made no claims of harm or fear in this hypothetical?
I wouldn't. You're the one doing that.

 

[Koldo]

Yep, I figured you'd take this off at an angle.
If you want to have a theoretical discussion on what right a parents should hold, and what is the basis for those, that's fine.
Asking for proof that they actually hold those 'fundamental rights' is a little rich in that scenario though.

It's not 'proof' you are after, since it is not possible to 'prove' the existence of 'fundamental rights', whatever they might be in your opinion.

So, for the purpose of this discussion...given that you were asking for proof...I took your question at face value and offered proof that these rights exist in a legal sense. There is obviously a line at which the rights of the child supercede the rights of the parents, for example where there is good reason to believe the well-being of the child is at risk.

If you want a more theoretical discussion on the existence of parental rights, you're going to have to do more work framing it than asking for 'proof'.

If you were to approach the existence of rights from a jusnaturalist position, you would have a very hard time showing they actually exist.

If, however, you are going to approach the existence of rights from a juspositivist position, as you have chosen, it is trivial to show they exist but redundant, since something being a right would have absolutely no necessary connection with being ethical or moral.

The same child who has made no claims of harm or fear in this hypothetical?
I wouldn't. You're the one doing that.

Because victims (or would-be victims on this case) would always be willing to freely speak, right? Why is it so hard to respect people's choices?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If you were to approach the existence of rights from a jusnaturalist position, you would have a very hard time showing they actually exist.

If, however, you are going to approach the existence of rights from a juspositivist position, as you have chosen, it is trivial to show they exist but redundant, since something being a right would have absolutely no necessary connection with being ethical or moral.

Well, thanks for explaining that there are two available paths, and both are 'wrong' in terms of any proof of parental rights. That's informative, and quite responsive to my words, and not at all pre-canned.

Because victims (or would-be victims on this case) would always be willing to freely speak, right? Why is it so hard to respect people's choices?

Transgender kids are now 'would-be victims'? Children of all types can be victimised by abusers. And if there is any reason to suspect abuse...including the child saying they're fearful...then by all means, don't tell the parents. I've never suggested otherwise.

As for 'respecting people's choices', you're working hard to avoid any recognition of parental responsibilities in looking after their own kids. I don't 'respect my teens choices' regardless of what they are. Rather I try to get her through in a healthy, safe and well-adjusted way to adulthood.

So, ultimately, these decisions are contextual. A 17 year old kid who wants to present as a particular gender, or in a fluid manner, or as non-binary, and who is generally well-adjusted doesn't seem like anything a school should concern itself with. The school isn't involved. There are some practical issues it would be sensible to work through explicitly, for example if the child is playing sports, or changing their name, etc. And it's important that the child knows if/when any of these might result in the parents being made aware, either explicitly or indirectly (eg. Name on the school report).

If my 13 year old, who has no history of interest in either sex suddenly asks the school how they'd go about having gender reassignment surgery, it is a totally different picture. That's obviously a highly unlikely edge case. I'm merely suggesting incidents should be taken on their merits, and assuming all parents are would-be abusers, and all trans kids are would-be victims comes at a cost.

But I am perhaps less of an individual rights absolutist than most.

 

[Koldo]

Well, thanks for explaining that there are two available paths, and both are 'wrong' in terms of any proof of parental rights. That's informative, and quite responsive to my words, and not at all pre-canned.

They are not 'wrong' in terms of proof. In one case, there is an uphill battle. In the other, you accept the redudance of evoking rights.

Transgender kids are now 'would-be victims'?

Not what I said. I am saying that you can't presume that all would-be victims of abuse, trans or not, would freely talk about their situation.

Children of all types can be victimised by abusers. And if there is any reason to suspect abuse...including the child saying they're fearful...then by all means, don't tell the parents. I've never suggested otherwise.

That's, once again, presuming the child is going tell others that they are fearful.

As for 'respecting people's choices', you're working hard to avoid any recognition of parental responsibilities in looking after their own kids. I don't 'respect my teens choices' regardless of what they are. Rather I try to get her through in a healthy, safe and well-adjusted way to adulthood.

Context. We are talking about choices concerning privacy where no life threatening condition is involved.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They are not 'wrong' in terms of proof. In one case, there is an uphill battle. In the other, you accept the redudance of evoking rights.

You keep trying things to rights. The whole world wants to see everything in terms of individuals rights. Be my guest. As I've already demonstrated, there are parental rights. However, I'm thinking about the issue in terms of responsibilities and assumptions.

Not what I said. I am saying that you can't presume that all would-be victims of abuse, trans or not, would freely talk about their situation.

And I'm suggesting that presuming people are victims of abuse without evidence...which would include a claim by them (in no way did I suggest it required a claim) is problematic.

That's, once again, presuming the child is going tell others that they are fearful.

Or that there is some reason to believe it. Like any other abusive situation schools deal with. I don't assume little Johnny gets beat up by his dad for getting a bad mark, do I? But I report that dad if I have reason to suspect it.

Context. We are talking about choices concerning privacy where no life threatening condition is involved.

Oh it's not? Go figure.

Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed

Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Koldo]

You keep trying things to rights. The whole world wants to see everything in terms of individuals rights. Be my guest. As I've already demonstrated, there are parental rights. However, I'm thinking about the issue in terms of responsibilities and assumptions.

You probably don't remember, but this conversation started with a post about rights. And as I have already stated, if you are approaching from a juspositivist position, the existence of parental rights doesn't matter as far as ethics are concerned.

And I'm suggesting that presuming people are victims of abuse without evidence...which would include a claim by them (in no way did I suggest it required a claim) is problematic.

But you don't need to presume that they are victims of abuse (or would be) to let them make the choice for themselves.

Or that there is some reason to believe it. Like any other abusive situation schools deal with. I don't assume little Johnny gets beat up by his dad for getting a bad mark, do I? But I report that dad if I have reason to suspect it.

I don't even think it is proper to report bad marks until the school has tried to fix the problem in the first place. And I am speaking as a person that frequently got beat up when I scored less than A- (this is not a typo) back when I was a child.

Oh it's not? Go figure.

Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed

Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Now give me the proper stats concerning what we are talking about. Stats about the suicide rate, for example, of people that don't let their parents know they are trans compared to their peers that had someone else, against their will, oust them to their parents.

 

[fantome profane]

But you don't need to presume that they are victims of abuse (or would be) to let them make the choice for themselves.

bingo

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You probably don't remember, but this conversation started with a post about rights. And as I have already stated, if you are approaching from a juspositivist position, the existence of parental rights doesn't matter as far as ethics are concerned.

My memory is fine. The topic is on rights....which exist, as per my earlier link. You can see those rights as trivial from an ethical point of view if you wish, it merely means you are moving away from a question on parents having rights, and moving to your subjective opinion on ethics.

But you don't need to presume that they are victims of abuse (or would be) to let them make the choice for themselves.

Part of the decision process here is an assessment of the relative maturity of the child, and as well as the normal assessments on safety.

A mature, well-adjusted child requires no school intervention, be it parental contact or anything else, in my opinion. I don't want schools prevented from communicating with parents where there are more direct interventions being undertaken by the school, the child is not mature, and there is no reason to suspect familial abuse.

We make lots of choices for children, and judging whether we 'should' requires context.

I don't even think it is proper to report bad marks until the school has tried to fix the problem in the first place. And I am speaking as a person that frequently got beat up when I scored less than A- (this is not a typo) back when I was a child.

It's unfortunate that you had an abusive parent. Mine was verbally so for much the same reason, but almost never physically so.

Regardless, I'm not sure what 'proper' means in this context.

Now give me the proper stats concerning what we are talking about. Stats about the suicide rate, for example, of people that don't let their parents know they are trans compared to their peers that had someone else, against their will, oust them to their parents.

Is that what we are talking about?

My point was simply to push back on a suggestion that there is no life threatening condition around privacy.
I think it's clear that decisions and policies around transgender issues are important and do involve life threatening issues. Indeed I would assume that's a key tenet of your position.

I don't believe a binary position of 'tell parents' or 'don't tell parents' is a good outcome, and I think the context of the individual situation matters.

 

[Koldo]

My memory is fine. The topic is on rights....which exist, as per my earlier link. You can see those rights as trivial from an ethical point of view if you wish, it merely means you are moving away from a question on parents having rights, and moving to your subjective opinion on ethics.

Let me put it like this: If you were to argue from a jusnaturalist position, you would be saying that the the law can't infringe parental rights, because the concept of rights woule be innately connected to ethical behavior.

Now, since you are coming from a juspositivist position, rights are nothing more than the current law in any given place. This has no bearing on how people should behave from an ethical standpoint.

Part of the decision process here is an assessment of the relative maturity of the child, and as well as the normal assessments on safety.

A mature, well-adjusted child requires no school intervention, be it parental contact or anything else, in my opinion. I don't want schools prevented from communicating with parents where there are more direct interventions being undertaken by the school, the child is not mature, and there is no reason to suspect familial abuse.

We make lots of choices for children, and judging whether we 'should' requires context.

Sure, and talking about sensitive topics, the ones prone to trigger abuse on this context, should be avoided as much as possible.

It's unfortunate that you had an abusive parent. Mine was verbally so for much the same reason, but almost never physically so.

Regardless, I'm not sure what 'proper' means in this context.

It is the school job's to teach children. If the child is finding themselves unable to score good grades, it is generally the school's own fault. Has the school in question at least tried to solve the problem by itself before involving the parents?

Is that what we are talking about?

My point was simply to push back on a suggestion that there is no life threatening condition around privacy.
I think it's clear that decisions and policies around transgender issues are important and do involve life threatening issues. Indeed I would assume that's a key tenet of your position.

I don't believe a binary position of 'tell parents' or 'don't tell parents' is a good outcome, and I think the context of the individual situation matters.

Context. We are talking about privacy concerning a specific thing that has specific consequences if preserved.

 

[esmith]

A warning shot across the bow of school distrcits and parents rights?

California school district settles with mother after school ‘transitioned’ daughter without her consent

A school district in California has settled for $100,000 with a single mother who said her daughter was "socially transitioned" to a boy without parental consent.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Unfettered]

What rights do you think parents have in this manner??

Parents have ALL the rights.

 

[Friend of Mara]

A New Jersy judge ruled that three schoold districts do not have to inform parents if their child changes their gender identity.
I for one believe that parents have the right to know what their child is doing or what they want to do in any situation. What rights do you think parents have in this manner??

New Jersey judge temporarily blocks school districts from notifying parents of child's gender identity change

A New Jersey judge temporarily blocked three school districts from enforcing new policies requiring staff to inform parents if their child changes their gender identity.

www.foxnews.com

NOPE. If a child wants to let the parent know the parents gets to know. No medical intervention of any kind is occurring so there is no need for the parents to be involved. Just like if a child is gay the school shouldn't let the parents know. Its is both foolish and dangerous in many cases to do so. It can and will cause great harm to several children who happen to be in abusive homes.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Parents have ALL the rights.

And the children have...none? That is a very dangerous view of the world.