Parents Rights On Transgender Policy

[Unfettered]

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.

I understand what you're saying, but it is lunacy—and immoral. I use those words seriously, not for dramatics. It is neither sane nor moral to give children power to self-direct that exceeds their power to make sound judgments. As the disparity between the two increases, the lunacy and immorality of giving them that power increases. If it is true that parents have both a natural and moral obligation to care for their children until their children have reached a point of maturity at which it is reasonable to extend to them all decision-making power, parents necessarily possess the right to oversee and govern that growth and guidance. And since it is true that parents actually have that obligation, it is true that they have the rights associated with it. The two are inseparable (the obligation and the rights). As you note, some parents respond with abuse to the choices of a child, which must affect the parents' rights as they pertain to the child. But to arbitrarily contract the rights of parents to oversee and govern the safety, growth and maturity of their children—I cannot think of a more destructive idea, both for individuals and for society. And should such destructive ideas become law—God help that society because the children are lost. They are lost because they will lose themselves to the misuse of power they are not prepared to use constructively.

As to the question of what rights a child has, they at all times have every basic right nature affords them. Natural rights not reasonably afforded at birth increase as their maturity increases. Civil rights increase as per the laws of the society in which they live.

Freewheeling with the rights of children is just absurd, and likewise is unjustified usurpation of parents' rights.

 

[Heyo]

I understand what you're saying, but it is lunacy—and immoral. I use those words seriously, not for dramatics. It is neither sane nor moral to give children power to self-direct that exceeds their power to make sound judgments. As the disparity between the two increases, the lunacy and immorality of giving them that power increases. If it is true that parents have both a natural and moral obligation to care for their children until their children have reached a point of maturity at which it is reasonable to extend to them all decision-making power, parents necessarily possess the right to oversee and govern that growth and guidance. And since it is true that parents actually have that obligation, it is true that they have the rights associated with it. The two are inseparable (the obligation and the rights). As you note, some parents respond with abuse to the choices of a child, which must affect the parents' rights as they pertain to the child. But to arbitrarily contract the rights of parents to oversee and govern the safety, growth and maturity of their children—I cannot think of a more destructive idea, both for individuals and for society. And should such destructive ideas become law—God help that society because the children are lost. They are lost because they will lose themselves to the misuse of power they are not prepared to use constructively.

Until here I oppose vehemently, but ...

As to the question of what rights a child has, they at all times have every basic right nature affords them. Natural rights not reasonably afforded at birth increase as their maturity increases. Civil rights increase as per the laws of the society in which they live.

... you finally got hold of yourself.
Yes, rights increase with age, gradually so that there is a constant influx of rights and responsibilities and it is not overwhelming the young adult at 18.
One of the human rights a teenager should have is the right to privacy. Parents shouldn't read their kids mails or their journals - and teachers shouldn't be forced to report what a pupil has revealed to them under the condition of confidentiality.

 

[Unfettered]

Until here I oppose vehemently, but ...

... you finally got hold of yourself.
Yes, rights increase with age, gradually so that there is a constant influx of rights and responsibilities and it is not overwhelming the young adult at 18.
One of the human rights a teenager should have is the right to privacy. Parents shouldn't read their kids mails or their journals - and teachers shouldn't be forced to report what a pupil has revealed to them under the condition of confidentiality.

I didn't get a hold of myself because I wasn't out of control. It is a question with deep impact, and that influences the forcefulness of the positions we express. If I'd have been lacing my language with insults and finger-wagging, etc., then I'd have needed to get a hold of myself. It seems to me that what did happen was that the composite of my position was finally understood. It was never a question of parents having the rights of the child, but the parents having the right of the parents to make judgments on behalf of the child and the maintenance of his rights.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I understand what you're saying, but it is lunacy—and immoral. I use those words seriously, not for dramatics. It is neither sane nor moral to give children power to self-direct that exceeds their power to make sound judgments. As the disparity between the two increases, the lunacy and immorality of giving them that power increases. If it is true that parents have both a natural and moral obligation to care for their children until their children have reached a point of maturity at which it is reasonable to extend to them all decision-making power, parents necessarily possess the right to oversee and govern that growth and guidance. And since it is true that parents actually have that obligation, it is true that they have the rights associated with it. The two are inseparable (the obligation and the rights). As you note, some parents respond with abuse to the choices of a child, which must affect the parents' rights as they pertain to the child. But to arbitrarily contract the rights of parents to oversee and govern the safety, growth and maturity of their children—I cannot think of a more destructive idea, both for individuals and for society. And should such destructive ideas become law—God help that society because the children are lost. They are lost because they will lose themselves to the misuse of power they are not prepared to use constructively.

Parents already do not control the vast majority of a child's identity. Nor do they care to in most regards. What other things should teachers be obligated to tell parents? Exactly what things they did not eat off of their plates at lunch? Who their friends are at school? If they have a nickname that they go by? Is a teacher obligated to go inform the parents of every single aspect of the child's life? The answer is no. And the only difference between this and the issue at hand is the politicization of trans issues. No one is injecting hormones into children without the parents consent. And if they are I will also be right beside you in arguing against it. But if someone child wants to go by a different name and pronoun at school then its really none of the parents business.

This is a point where most conservatives and I will branch off and I don't think we can bridge this gap. If you are homophobic or transphobic you shouldn't be a parent. If you would disown your children or abuse your children because of who they are you are a terrible parent. The number of parents in the US who would look at their child with hate or with the intent to beat out of them something intrinsic to their being is far far far too high. I can't in good conscience endanger that many children's mental and physical wellbeing.

As to the question of what rights a child has, they at all times have every basic right nature affords them. Natural rights not reasonably afforded at birth increase as their maturity increases. Civil rights increase as per the laws of the society in which they live.

Freewheeling with the rights of children is just absurd, and likewise is unjustified usurpation of parents' rights.

Parents shouldn't get the right to hate their kids.

 

[YmirGF]

Parents shouldn't get the right to hate their kids.

But, it's Okie Dokie for the kids to hate their parent so much that they want to keep secrets from them and leave them out of their life.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Friend of Mara]

But, it's Okie Dokie for the kids to hate their parent so much that they want to keep secrets from them and leave them out of their life.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Sometimes yeah. If you have an adult child that has made terrible heinous things then I guess feel free to hate them. But an 8 year old has likely never done something worth hating. Adults on the other hand need to be held to a higher standard.

Also it is normal for children to not tell every little thing to the parent. Its a healthy part of development. But if its such a significant issue that the parents should know I think the bigger question is why didn't THEY tell the parent? That is more telling than anything.

Edit because it bothered me.
Children at school not telling their parents they are experimenting with a name change or pronoun change at school isn't indicative of hatred. It isn't equative of hatred. Its not even in the same realm. I think we both know that. At best its fear. Or the chance to do something without judgement first to see how they feel before brining it up to them. Its not a malicious act against the parent.

 

[Unfettered]

Parents already do not control the vast majority of a child's identity. Nor do they care to in most regards.

Are you talking about the "what" of a child's identity, or the "who" of a child's identity? It makes a difference. Nature determines "what" a child is. The child, ultimately, determines "who" he or she is, though parents clearly have an influence. As do other family members, friends, teachers, etc.

What other things should teachers be obligated to tell parents? Exactly what things they did not eat off of their plates at lunch? Who their friends are at school? If they have a nickname that they go by? Is a teacher obligated to go inform the parents of every single aspect of the child's life? The answer is no.

I agree that the answer is "No" to the question of whether or not teachers are obligated, or should be expected, to relay mundane details of which they become aware as they are acting as temporary caretakers of a child. I don't know of any cases where parents have requested such minutiae. Do you?

I does seem reasonable, however, that a teacher would make the parents of a child aware of anything about the child that the teacher is made aware of when the teacher believes the parents would want to know about it, or that would be alarming to the parents were they aware of the thing. Likewise, if parents had requested to be made aware of specific things related to their child, a teacher most certainly would be obligated to relay to the parents such information.

And the only difference between this and the issue at hand is the politicization of trans issues.

Well, if a teacher knows that a child is involved or engaged in things that the teacher believes or suspects the parents might be concerned about, what difference does it make how the issue can be classified socially? It's not the political status of an issue that makes it important to communicate, but the nature of the issue.

No one is injecting hormones into children without the parents consent.

That's good. They certainly better not be!

But if someone child wants to go by a different name and pronoun at school then its really none of the parents business.

Let's run with that, but for my part I need to understand why. Because I don't understand why you believe so. Would you explain why, in your understanding, that particular thing would not be the parents' business? What makes that particular thing different than some other thing that a teacher would, or ought, to relay to a child's parents? Because, clearly, many parents would want to know about it.

This is a point where most conservatives and I will branch off and I don't think we can bridge this gap. If you are homophobic or transphobic you shouldn't be a parent. If you would disown your children or abuse your children because of who they are you are a terrible parent. The number of parents in the US who would look at their child with hate or with the intent to beat out of them something intrinsic to their being is far far far too high. I can't in good conscience endanger that many children's mental and physical wellbeing.

I am politically independent, not homophobic, not transphobic, would not disown or abuse my children because of who they are, don't hate my children, and don't beat my children, so I'm not thinking you and I have a gap to bridge here? For my part, I'm still not sure I understand completely all that you've said. I hope you'll read my thoughts and questions openly and objectively, and without inserting anything or filtering my statements through any stereotype.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Are you talking about the "what" of a child's identity, or the "who" of a child's identity? It makes a difference. Nature determines "what" a child is. The child, ultimately, determines "who" he or she is, though parents clearly have an influence. As do other family members, friends, teachers, etc.

True. Though I suppose in this particular instance of a child's gender identity I mean "what" not "who" in the case of it being inherent rather than influenced.

I agree that the answer is "No" to the question of whether or not teachers are obligated, or should be expected, to relay mundane details of which they become aware as they are acting as temporary caretakers of a child. I don't know of any cases where parents have requested such minutiae. Do you?

I does seem reasonable, however, that a teacher would make the parents of a child aware of anything about the child that the teacher is made aware of when the teacher believes the parents would want to know about it, or that would be alarming to the parents were they aware of the thing. Likewise, if parents had requested to be made aware of specific things related to their child, a teacher most certainly would be obligated to relay to the parents such information.

Well, if a teacher knows that a child is involved or engaged in things that the teacher believes or suspects the parents might be concerned about, what difference does it make how the issue can be classified socially? It's not the political status of an issue that makes it important to communicate, but the nature of the issue.

That's good. They certainly better not be!


Let's run with that, but for my part I need to understand why. Because I don't understand why you believe so. Would you explain why, in your understanding, that particular thing would not be the parents' business? What makes that particular thing different than some other thing that a teacher would, or ought, to relay to a child's parents? Because, clearly, many parents would want to know about it.


I am politically independent, not homophobic, not transphobic, would not disown or abuse my children because of who they are, don't hate my children, and don't beat my children, so I'm not thinking you and I have a gap to bridge here? For my part, I'm still not sure I understand completely all that you've said. I hope you'll read my thoughts and questions openly and objectively, and without inserting anything or filtering my statements through any stereotype.

Sure. To clarify a I am talking more generically about the subject and less directly too you specifically. I am happy to hear you are not homophobic or transphobic. I am also happy to hear that you wouldn't disown your children or abuse them because of who they are. However I hope you understand that this simply isn't the reality that many people live in today. It isn't rare. It isn't even uncommon. Depending on the area it is likely to be the majority.

In the queer community its called "outing". To "out" someone is to tell or showcase to people their queerness when it was previously unstated or sometimes outright hidden. Sometimes its publicly and sometimes its to their family or friends. It is universally seen as a terrible thing to do. It is a harmful thing to do. It is a disrespectful thing to do. Coming out is a process that is often painful and laced with negative experiences mostly coming from the people that ought to love and support you the most. To have that process jumpstarted by people who had no business interfering in the first place is the worst case scenario especially for young queer children. People get hurt and abused because of it.

According to the Trevor Project 28% of Queer youth have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity at some point in their lives because of their sexuality. Even if that number is somewhat inflated (which I don't believe it is) its staggering.

Also to place this into perspective. Most people against this are thinking about 5 year old in elementary school. When in reality its the 13-17 year old kids who already know who they are and know they can't trust their parents and have decided to try and come out in a safer place than home. I don't have as much personal experience with trans youth but I know queer youth. And I know outing is never acceptable.

 

[Heyo]

It seems to me that what did happen was that the composite of my position was finally understood.

It seems to me that was the first time you expressed the composite of your position. The first paragraph was just defending the simplistic statement of post #398.

 

[Unfettered]

True. Though I suppose in this particular instance of a child's gender identity I mean "what" not "who" in the case of it being inherent rather than influenced.

I hear you, but if we exchange the term "sex" for "gender" on the "what" part of a child's identity, have we really changed anything? The "what" part of the child's identity is fixed. Nature made the child "what" she is. If the child—for any reason whatever—wants that "what" to be different, it can't be. The only area, then, over which the child has any control in regards to "what" she is…is in her own mind. Reality will not yield to what the child wants, believes or chooses.

I think this is the root of the challenge for everyone—the child, the parents, society at large. Because if the only area that a child can control, in terms of "what" she is—if the only area she can control is in her own mind, and if the reality of "what" she is does not change (we know it doesn't), that's it; she has reached the absolute limit of her control. She can't control others. And to try to control others would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for others to attempt to control her. So yeah, she would be in a real pickle of a place. She'd be living not in the natural world—the real world—but in a world of her own creation…in a world where she is not "what" she is, but "what" she is not. And that would be a lonely world.

Yeah, messing with "what" a child is…that is…well, I can't see how that would ever end well. Nor can I see how it would be something to encourage in a child. I certainly cannot see how it would be good, or even moral, to affirm a child in such a move. For to affirm would be to close one's own eyes to the truth and join the child in the fantasy world she has chosen to live in. Wow; no way; I can't think of anything more destructive. What a tragedy it is when that happens. So sad.

Sure. To clarify a I am talking more generically about the subject and less directly too you specifically. I am happy to hear you are not homophobic or transphobic. I am also happy to hear that you wouldn't disown your children or abuse them because of who they are. However I hope you understand that this simply isn't the reality that many people live in today. It isn't rare. It isn't even uncommon. Depending on the area it is likely to be the majority.

I don't know that it is as common as you suggest here. It's possible that it is, for sure. I mean, in my lifetime this world has grown increasingly distressed and confused, so it is possible. But God help us if we have that many kids lost and confused in the first place, and God help us even more if the in majority of those kids' homes they are treated with malice or contempt because they are confused or in mental or emotional distress about "what" they are.

In the queer community its called "outing". To "out" someone is to tell or showcase to people their queerness when it was previously unstated or sometimes outright hidden. Sometimes its publicly and sometimes its to their family or friends. It is universally seen as a terrible thing to do. It is a harmful thing to do. It is a disrespectful thing to do. Coming out is a process that is often painful and laced with negative experiences mostly coming from the people that ought to love and support you the most. To have that process jumpstarted by people who had no business interfering in the first place is the worst case scenario especially for young queer children. People get hurt and abused because of it.

Well, abuse is never justified. That's a no-brainer. As for the rest of what you talk about here, it seems to me like a complicated, overlapping mess of human imperfection. I don't think generalizations are very useful here. Each person's circumstance will be unique in some way, even if common threads emerge when the sample grows. I know I don't want to be treated as a nameless, faceless pod person in some stereotyped group.

According to the Trevor Project 28% of Queer youth have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity at some point in their lives because of their sexuality. Even if that number is somewhat inflated (which I don't believe it is) its staggering.

Yeah, I don't know anything about that stat. I'm very cautious with stats. I've taken part in too many surveys and know that they usually skew responses toward predetermined ideas or social catch-phrases. If we focus on the world immediately around us we can have an immense impact for good. Perhaps what we should be focusing on is that person who is homeless—that one right there. Or those parents whose child is trying to control them with threats of suicide if they don't affirm her choice to live in fantasy world where her "what" is now a "he"—those parents right there. Or that child who is being bullied for…any reason—that child right there. If we spend our energy on the macro social issues, we will surely be miserable constantly, because the vast majority of us simply aren't in a place where we can have a macro influence. Meanwhile, there are people we know who need us.

Also to place this into perspective. Most people against this are thinking about 5 year old in elementary school. When in reality its the 13-17 year old kids who already know who they are and know they can't trust their parents and have decided to try and come out in a safer place than home. I don't have as much personal experience with trans youth but I know queer youth. And I know outing is never acceptable.

Well, all children should be protected from abuse. Sometimes it's the group we focus on the least that experiences the greatest challenges. Maybe that's why they experience the greatest challenges?

 

[Unfettered]

It seems to me that was the first time you expressed the composite of your position. The first paragraph was just defending the simplistic statement of post #398.

It might look that way, but one thing I've learned (and have to keep re-learning, I admit) is that in these forums we never see all that a person thinks. And we cover ground with written words a lot slower than we do in spoken communication. And we're probably all less patient than we ought to be. So a lot of things contribute to our tendency to react, rather than to clarify or confirm that we've heard all there is to hear. I try, though I'm guilty of failure, too. Forgive, forgive, forgive, right? (nor do I do this as well as I know how)

 

[Friend of Mara]

I hear you, but if we exchange the term "sex" for "gender" on the "what" part of a child's identity, have we really changed anything? The "what" part of the child's identity is fixed. Nature made the child "what" she is. If the child—for any reason whatever—wants that "what" to be different, it can't be. The only area, then, over which the child has any control in regards to "what" she is…is in her own mind. Reality will not yield to what the child wants, believes or chooses.

I think this is the root of the challenge for everyone—the child, the parents, society at large. Because if the only area that a child can control, in terms of "what" she is—if the only area she can control is in her own mind, and if the reality of "what" she is does not change (we know it doesn't), that's it; she has reached the absolute limit of her control. She can't control others. And to try to control others would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for others to attempt to control her. So yeah, she would be in a real pickle of a place. She'd be living not in the natural world—the real world—but in a world of her own creation…in a world where she is not "what" she is, but "what" she is not. And that would be a lonely world.

Yeah, messing with "what" a child is…that is…well, I can't see how that would ever end well. Nor can I see how it would be something to encourage in a child. I certainly cannot see how it would be good, or even moral, to affirm a child in such a move. For to affirm would be to close one's own eyes to the truth and join the child in the fantasy world she has chosen to live in. Wow; no way; I can't think of anything more destructive. What a tragedy it is when that happens. So sad.

From this I am sensing that you aren't the biggest supporter of trans rights. Or at the very least you don't believe trans people are legitimate. And back to my earlier post where I usually loose people is at that point. This point would only ever have to be hashed out with a "do trans people exist" debate all within itself. Because if they do then obviously my point follows.

I don't know that it is as common as you suggest here. It's possible that it is, for sure. I mean, in my lifetime this world has grown increasingly distressed and confused, so it is possible. But God help us if we have that many kids lost and confused in the first place, and God help us even more if the in majority of those kids' homes they are treated with malice or contempt because they are confused or in mental or emotional distress about "what" they are.

Are you suggesting it is becoming "more" common? That it "wasn't" commonplace? Surely you jest. Or do you not see the way the LGBTQ have been treated in the last few hundred years. Not only was the abuse common it was outright socially mandatory till but a few decades ago. I'm driving a car older than marriage equality in the US.

Well, abuse is never justified. That's a no-brainer. As for the rest of what you talk about here, it seems to me like a complicated, overlapping mess of human imperfection. I don't think generalizations are very useful here. Each person's circumstance will be unique in some way, even if common threads emerge when the sample grows. I know I don't want to be treated as a nameless, faceless pod person in some stereotyped group.

Would that make you feel uncomfortable? Do you think that would make you feel more uncomfortable than having your autonomy violated and privacy breeched about a potentially personal secret shared in confidence to a trusted authority figure and mentor?

Yeah, I don't know anything about that stat. I'm very cautious with stats. I've taken part in too many surveys and know that they usually skew responses toward predetermined ideas or social catch-phrases. If we focus on the world immediately around us we can have an immense impact for good. Perhaps what we should be focusing on is that person who is homeless—that one right there. Or those parents whose child is trying to control them with threats of suicide if they don't affirm her choice to live in fantasy world where her "what" is now a "he"—those parents right there. Or that child who is being bullied for…any reason—that child right there. If we spend our energy on the macro social issues, we will surely be miserable constantly, because the vast majority of us simply aren't in a place where we can have a macro influence. Meanwhile, there are people we know who need us.

Well, all children should be protected from abuse. Sometimes it's the group we focus on the least that experiences the greatest challenges. Maybe that's why they experience the greatest challenges?

Sure. I think direct advocacy for individuals is great. And the best way to do that is to fund schools and programs usually. It leads to the same place that you were so very much against. Which is more autonomy for teachers and administration and less so for parents in terms of involvement in the lives of children.

And doubt stats all you want I guess. I can't make you believe a thing. But think of things from the perspective of those this rule is trying to protect. Think of yourself as a young trans child with parents that are less than understanding. Parents that will be aggressive and potentially outright abusive. In some ways its almost worse when they are not "outright" abusive. Because "strait camps" are not considered abusive in some states despite it being legally torture in some countries.

I won't tell you the direct stats since you are skeptical but it is a known fact that trans youth are at high risk of self harm and suicide. However there is a proportional effect of mental health and stability by how much acceptance and support they get from the adults in their lives. Just having their parents accept them cuts the suicidality in half. The highest rates are in those with no support.

 

[Unfettered]

From this I am sensing that you aren't the biggest supporter of trans rights. Or at the very least you don't believe trans people are legitimate.

Human beings are human beings. And all human beings have the same rights—human rights. I have no idea what "trans rights" are, just like I have no idea what "mens rights" are, or "asian peoples rights," or "little girls rights," etc. We have human rights as human beings, and we have civil rights as citizens of a nation. Apart from that, all other "right" collections people talk about...who has any idea what they're talking about? I certainly don't.

So a "trans" human being has the same rights as every other human being. That is what I understand. If you believe I'm missing something, I'm happy to listen as you explain what trans rights are. And if a trans person's human rights are being violated, whomever is doing that should stop, or be held accountable, or both, because that is unacceptable. I defend every human and civil right of every human being and citizen.

As far as trans people being legitimate, again, I don't know what that means. Legitimate how? You'll have to clarify. Are trans people human beings? Yes. Do they have every human right that every other human being has? Yes. Same with civil rights. Do they have more rights that other human beings because they are "trans"? No. If they do, then we should all be trans people because they have the most rights. And when some other self-identifying group manages to secure from government rights that no one else enjoys, we should all switch to being that thing, whatever it is. My understanding is that we are all equal, we all have the same rights, and each of us may appeal to government for equal protection of the laws when those rights are infringed. That's what I understand.

I'm listening, if you think I've misunderstood something, or have overlooked something.

And back to my earlier post where I usually loose people is at that point. This point would only ever have to be hashed out with a "do trans people exist" debate all within itself. Because if they do then obviously my point follows.

Well, don't pull the plug on me just yet. We don't have to agree on everything to be able to talk. Anyway, insofar as I understand what is being referred to, and I may not, it is clear to me that "trans people" exist. I don't dispute that.

Are you suggesting it is becoming "more" common? That it "wasn't" commonplace? Surely you jest. Or do you not see the way the LGBTQ have been treated in the last few hundred years. Not only was the abuse common it was outright socially mandatory till but a few decades ago. I'm driving a car older than marriage equality in the US.

Honestly, the quantity of trans or queer people over time isn't, in my mind, a point to get hung up on. It really doesn't matter how many or how few we're talking about. What matters is that the rights of every person, however he or she is composed and however he or she identifies self, receives equal protection of the laws. If that isn't happening, it should be corrected. There cannot be room or excuse for either abuse or favoritism. Our equality needs to be reflected and protected.

What is clear to me is that, in the US, government has abused our rights, and continues to do so in many ways. The marriage equality question is a good example. Government should not regulate the marriage of consenting adults, just like it does not regulate our other relationships. Its improper injection into that question has produced all the associated problems, and passing laws codifying the legitimacy of this marriage or that will not solve the problem, it will only make it worse. If government would butt out, because it has no business there in the first place, it would vastly improve things.

Would that make you feel uncomfortable? Do you think that would make you feel more uncomfortable than having your autonomy violated and privacy breeched about a potentially personal secret shared in confidence to a trusted authority figure and mentor?

Of course it would make me feel uncomfortable, etc. I don't know how that bears on the point, though. "Outing" is not a new concept for me. I don't agree that it is an appropriate response to something one has a problem with. At the same time, attempting to compel people to accept what they cannot in good conscience accept is also an inappropriate response. And, again, all of this is exacerbated by government, because everyone is trying to get government to force the other person to comply with their desires. Well, that's not equality, equal rights or equal protection of the laws.

Sure. I think direct advocacy for individuals is great. And the best way to do that is to fund schools and programs usually. It leads to the same place that you were so very much against. Which is more autonomy for teachers and administration and less so for parents in terms of involvement in the lives of children.

Well, I don't think giving money to the public school system is the right thing to do. Or good. Or sensible. Public school really is a horrible system. And a horrible idea. It has produced more social discord and more mental illness and more abuse than practically any other thing the US government has done. It ranks with slavery and marriage regulation in terms of abuses of human rights. Please, no. Seriously, would we even have a public debate about who can use the boys' or girls' restrooms if it weren't for public school? Probably not. Same with transgender sports. If government were not involved, and it shouldn't be, all of these things would likely just go away.

No, people need to take a large step back and look at where most of our problems originate. It isn't, by default, with "bad people" who are x-phobic or y-phobic. It is often government creating spaces in which certain self-identifying groups are favored (heterosexual marriage, for example), while others are disfavored (homosexual marriage). If government would do its job, those issues would not be social issues. They would be religious issues, or issues of conscience. And since the law protects me from your religion, and vice versa, we have no problem. Of course, government not executing the law on those who abuse others is also a big problem; the problem on the other side of the coin if you will.

Ultimately, if you think I'm an enemy to trans or queer or any other group, you're mistaken. I champion their right to live how they want to live. I know that it is how government is used that is responsible for all these social problems. If Christians want it some way that is incompatible with equal rights, tough cookies for the Christians. If trans people want it some way that is incompatible with equal rights, tough cookies for the trans people. Etc. That is what we have government for, and if it would do its job, we'd have more peace and harmony and tolerance and acceptance.

And doubt stats all you want I guess. I can't make you believe a thing. But think of things from the perspective of those this rule is trying to protect. Think of yourself as a young trans child with parents that are less than understanding. Parents that will be aggressive and potentially outright abusive. In some ways its almost worse when they are not "outright" abusive. Because "strait camps" are not considered abusive in some states despite it being legally torture in some countries.

Again, the focus can't be on statistics because those don't bear on the question of whether or not rights are, or are not, being abused. So it doesn't matter whether I trust the stat or not. Let's not get hung up on symptoms; let's look at the disease—and the cure.

I won't tell you the direct stats since you are skeptical but it is a known fact that trans youth are at high risk of self harm and suicide. However there is a proportional effect of mental health and stability by how much acceptance and support they get from the adults in their lives. Just having their parents accept them cuts the suicidality in half. The highest rates are in those with no support.

Again, the stats point to real things, but a productive focus will be on how to protect the rights of everyone involved.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Human beings are human beings. And all human beings have the same rights—human rights. I have no idea what "trans rights" are, just like I have no idea what "mens rights" are, or "asian peoples rights," or "little girls rights," etc. We have human rights as human beings, and we have civil rights as citizens of a nation. Apart from that, all other "right" collections people talk about...who has any idea what they're talking about? I certainly don't.

So a "trans" human being has the same rights as every other human being. That is what I understand. If you believe I'm missing something, I'm happy to listen as you explain what trans rights are. And if a trans person's human rights are being violated, whomever is doing that should stop, or be held accountable, or both, because that is unacceptable. I defend every human and civil right of every human being and citizen.

As far as trans people being legitimate, again, I don't know what that means. Legitimate how? You'll have to clarify. Are trans people human beings? Yes. Do they have every human right that every other human being has? Yes. Same with civil rights. Do they have more rights that other human beings because they are "trans"? No. If they do, then we should all be trans people because they have the most rights. And when some other self-identifying group manages to secure from government rights that no one else enjoys, we should all switch to being that thing, whatever it is. My understanding is that we are all equal, we all have the same rights, and each of us may appeal to government for equal protection of the laws when those rights are infringed. That's what I understand.

I'm listening, if you think I've misunderstood something, or have overlooked something.

Well, don't pull the plug on me just yet. We don't have to agree on everything to be able to talk. Anyway, insofar as I understand what is being referred to, and I may not, it is clear to me that "trans people" exist. I don't dispute that. d

For clarity would you, in your own words, define what it means to be trans. That way we can both move forward without any sort of gray area involved.

Honestly, the quantity of trans or queer people over time isn't, in my mind, a point to get hung up on. It really doesn't matter how many or how few we're talking about. What matters is that the rights of every person, however he or she is composed and however he or she identifies self, receives equal protection of the laws. If that isn't happening, it should be corrected. There cannot be room or excuse for either abuse or favoritism. Our equality needs to be reflected and protected.

What is clear to me is that, in the US, government has abused our rights, and continues to in many ways. The marriage equality question is a good example. Government should have no involvement whatever with our marriage relationships. It's improper injection into that question has produced all the associated problems, and passing laws codifying the legitimacy of this marriage or that, will not solve the problem; it will only make it worse. If government would but out, because it has not business there in the first place, it would vastly improve things.

I'm not talking about the quantity of queer people. I'm talking about the prevalence of bigotry and the very real danger that queer people face in the face of that bigotry. It has reduced in recent years but it has no yet gone away. I think enough people are still reliably bigots and hold dangerous and even violent ideas about trans people to the point that it is bringing undo harm and danger to children to out them to parents by a blanket requirement established by the state.

Of course it would make me feel uncomfortable, etc. I don't know how that bears on the point, though. Meaning, how I would or would not feel. "Outing" is not a new concept for me. I don't agree that it is an appropriate response to something one has a problem with. At the same time, attempting to compel people to accept what they cannot in good conscience accept is also an inappropriate response. And, again, all of this is exacerbated by government, because everyone is trying to get government to force the other person to comply with their desires. Well, that's not equality, equal rights or equal protection of the laws.

Equal rights and equal protection under the law would be the children gaining autonomy at school. Extra rights and extra provisions at the detriment of children given to the parents would be the schools being required by the government to keep tabs on their gender and report it to the parents. A bit draconian when stated that way isn't it?

Can you explain in more detail "Attempting to compel people to accept what they cannot in good conscience accept" mean? I think I know but I wouldn't want to assume.

Well, I don't think giving money to the public school system is the right thing to do. Or good. Or sensible. Public school really is a horrible system. And a horrible idea. It has produced more social discord and more mental illness and more abuse than practically any other thing the US government has done. It ranks with slavery and marriage regulation in terms of abuses of human rights. Please, no. Seriously, would we even have a public debate about who can use the boys' or girls' restrooms if it weren't for public school? Probably not. Same with transgender sports. If government were not involved, and it shouldn't be, all of these things would likely just go away.

No, people need to take a large step back and look at where most of our problems originate. It isn't with "bad people" who are x-phobic or y-phobic. It is government creating spaces in which certain self-identifying groups are favored (heterosexual marriage, for example), while others are disfavored (homosexual marriage). If government would do its job, those issues would not be social issues. They would be religious issues, or issues of conscience. And since the law protects me from your religion, and vice versa, we have no problem.

Yeah, if you think I'm an enemy to trans or queer or any other group, you're mistaken. I champion their right to live how they want to live. I know that it is how government is used that is responsible for all these social problems. If Christians want it some way that is incompatible with equal rights, tough cookies for the Christians. If trans people want it some way that is incompatible with equal rights, tough cookies for the trans people. Etc.

Public schools are ineffective largely because of a lack of funding. Are you anti-school? Or just anti public school? And if the latter why only that? And if you want me to think you aren't an enemy of the LGBTQ why would you insinuate that it is a failing of education that we would even be having a conversation about gender? Unless you are insinuating that we would have moved towards gender abolition.

Again, the focus can't be on statistics because those don't bear on the question of whether or not rights are, or are not, being abused. So it doesn't matter whether I trust the stat or not. Let's not get hung up on symptoms; let's look at the disease—and the cure.

Again, the stats point to real things, but a productive focus will be on how to protect the rights of everyone involved.

Protecting rights is well and good but protecting people also matters. And at times we must make choices. Not all freedoms can be equally protected. My ability to swing my arm ends at your nose so to speak. So until I hear an argument that at least begins to tell me a reason as to why we shouldn't be protecting children I will always side with protecting children.

For example lets put this in the worst case scenario. A kid does their thing at school. School doesn't tell the parent. What is the worst case scenario in your mind from that. Vs the worst case scenario of a school being required to tell parents of all pronoun changes? Which leads to worse outcomes? Measurably?

 

[Unfettered]

For clarity would you, in your own words, define what it means to be trans. That way we can both move forward without any sort of gray area involved.

To "be" trans is to identify as something other than what one is. That is what I understand. This could apply to one's sex. It could apply to one's species. It could apply to anything, I suppose.

I'm not talking about the quantity of queer people. I'm talking about the prevalence of bigotry and the very real danger that queer people face in the face of that bigotry. It has reduced in recent years but it has no yet gone away. I think enough people are still reliably bigots and hold dangerous and even violent ideas about trans people to the point that it is bringing undo harm and danger to children to out them to parents by a blanket requirement established by the state. [/.quote]Yes, I agree, there are still people mistreat others and do things to cause them harm.

Equal rights and equal protection under the law would be the children gaining autonomy at school.

You'll have to explain how, because I don't see how. Extra rights and extra provisions at the detriment of children given to the parents would be the schools being required by the government to keep tabs on their gender and report it to the parents. A bit draconian when stated that way isn't it?

Again, I don't know what you're referring to here. I don't believe that any child has the "right" to keep private from parents things that fall within the parents' purview of obligation to the child. Nor do I believe that a teacher has the "right" to withhold such information from parents when the teacher is in possession of it. If either the child or the teacher would be concerned for the child's safety in the event that the parents were to come into the knowledge in question, then either the child or the teacher should relay the matter to the justice system.

Can you explain in more detail "Attempting to compel people to accept what they cannot in good conscience accept" mean? I think I know but I wouldn't want to assume.

Since the trans issue is what this thread looks at, the statement relates to the trans issue.

In explanation, if an adult male chooses to identify as a female, he is free to do so. But if he has a friend who cannot, in good conscience, accept that false reality, the trans person should not attempt to compel the friend to accept the false reality, either through passive aggression, threats of suicide, threats of withdrawal of friendship or actual withdrawal of friendship, threats of legal action or actual legal action, gossip or threats of gossip, name-calling or threats of name-calling ("you're transphobic"), etc. All such things are abuses. Both the trans person and the friend are free and must remain free.

The same applies in the other direction. If an adult male chooses to identify as trans (as an adult female, in this case), his friend should not attempt to compel him to not do so. The trans woman must be free to embrace the false reality he prefers. And both are obliged to accept those outcomes that are natural extensions of the choices they make. Rights cannot be abused, but natural outcomes will be what they will be. That is reality.

Public schools are ineffective largely because of a lack of funding. Are you anti-school? Or just anti public school? And if the latter why only that?

I am not anti-school. I am anti-public-school at this time. Public school, as currently constituted in our legal system, is an infringement of both human and civil rights. When a child is born his parents inherit from nature both the obligation to educate the child and the right to determine the nature of that education (which includes how to fund it). Because public school is funded through taxation, it constitutes an appropriation of the obligation of parents to educate their children, and a usurpation of the parents' right to determine the nature of the child's education. That's a summary on the human rights front.

On the civil rights front, the public school system as presently constituted violates the first amendment by establishing through taxation a state religion.

Does that clarify?

And if you want me to think you aren't an enemy of the LGBTQ why would you insinuate that it is a failing of education that we would even be having a conversation about gender? Unless you are insinuating that we would have moved towards gender abolition.

We can talk about gender all day long, but that is not the issue if what we're after is "protection." Equal protection of the laws is the issue. I am a friend of every LGBTQ person because believe that each should enjoy equal protection of the laws. I am otherwise disinterested in their fixation on gender. I get it. Be trans. Be queer. Be whatever. If that's what makes you happy. You're free. Make your choice and live your life.

How am I an enemy to anyone here?

Protecting rights is well and good but protecting people also matters.

I don't understand. Isn't protecting rights how we protect people in society? Aren't the two, in a civic context, the same thing?

I mean, if a guy looks to break in to my house and rob me, what is protecting me? First off, no one knows the crime is about to be committed except the burglar, so no one is standing by to do anything about it. No protection there. The police can't offer me protection; maybe they'll show up at some point; they certainly don't know to be there before the crime begins. Apart from any locks, barriers or weapons I might call to bear to defend myself, the only thing standing between the burglar and me is an idea that states that I have a right he can't violate without suffering a contraction of his own rights (he can't break into my house, etc.). He's still free to act. I can't change that. And I wouldn't want to. I don't want him to violate my rights, but I can't require that he be imprisoned before he commits a crime—because we are equal and have the same rights, and we live in a social order in which rights are protected from unlawful infringement (infringement before the fact is unlawful). The yet-to-be burglar and I are each given the same benefit of the doubt; we are each innocent until some action we produce gives others cause to activate the justice system against us, where we may be proven guilty and suffer a loss of our rights (perhaps permanently, if the crime warrants it).

I most certainly believe in protecting children, but never at the expense of the rights of the innocent.

I feel like I'm missing something here. You are heavily focused on protecting children from...being outed? I don't know. I understand your zeal and share your desire to protect children, but insofar as I understand what you're advocating, I can't agree that it is right. We just have to be careful to protect everyone's rights, or we're just a different breed of bad. Please fill in any gaps you believe may exist in my understanding of what you're saying.

And at times we must make choices. Not all freedoms can be equally protected. My ability to swing my arm ends at your nose so to speak. So until I hear an argument that at least begins to tell me a reason as to why we shouldn't be protecting children I will always side with protecting children.

No one has advocated for not protecting children.

If you look at the swing analogy, no one's rights are not protected. You imply that yours are because you can't swing your arm and hit my nose. But you don't have a right to swing your arm and hit my nose. So there is nothing there to protect.

I don't point this out to be argumentative, but to punctuate how careful we have to be when we start tossing around ideas that intend to protect people from unknowns.

For example lets put this in the worst case scenario. A kid does their thing at school. School doesn't tell the parent. What is the worst case scenario in your mind from that. Vs the worst case scenario of a school being required to tell parents of all pronoun changes? Which leads to worse outcomes? Measurably?

That's just it, I don't know. No one does. Why would we prejudice anyone here?

 

[fantome profane]

As far as trans people being legitimate, again, I don't know what that means. Legitimate how? You'll have to clarify. Are trans people human beings? Yes. Do they have every human right that every other human being has? Yes. Same with civil rights. Do they have more rights that other human beings because they are "trans"? No.

Transgender people should have the same rights as everyone else. The right to live their lives as they wish without being molested. The right to privacy. The right to make their own medical decisions. The right to dress as they choose. The right to exist.

 

[Unfettered]

Transgender people should have the same rights as everyone else. The right to live their lives as they wish without being molested. The right to privacy. The right to make their own medical decisions. The right to dress as they choose. The right to exist.

Thank you. If you read all that I have written, you'll see that I asserted the same thing.

Actually, I was more assertive, even, than you. You said they "should" have the same rights; I said they "do" have the same rights.

 

[fantome profane]

I said they "do" have the same rights.

Until the government starts passing laws to take those rights away. Laws that ban gender affirming care, laws that ban "cross-dressing", laws tell people where they can or cannot pee.

 

[Unfettered]

Until the government stats passing laws to take those rights away.

When our rights are suppressed, we still have them. What we don't have when they are suppressed is "protection" for them. Big difference. Enslaved people believe they have no rights because their rights are not protected. Free people know they have rights and fight, when necessary, to protect them.

Trans people have the same rights as every other human and citizen. If government doesn't protect their rights, government must be amended. That is the perpetual struggle of a would-be-free society.

Laws that ban gender affirming care, laws that ban "cross-dressing", laws tell people where they can or cannot pee.

If you want to look at each of those and discuss them, it would be an interesting discussion. Meaning, are the things you've pointed out actually "rights"? I'm not saying either way, I'm inviting a careful look.

 

[fantome profane]

When our rights are suppressed, we still have them. What we don't have when they are suppressed is "protection" for them. Big difference. Enslaved people believe they have no rights because their rights are not protected. Free people know they have rights and fight, when necessary, to protect them.

Semantics. The term "rights" can have different meanings in different contexts, I was using the word one way, you have chosen to interpret it in a different way.

But actually I agree with you. It is a simple matter of rephrasing: "Until the government starts passing laws that suppress those rights for one group"

Trans people have the same rights as every other human and citizen. If government doesn't protect their rights, government must be amended. That is the perpetual struggle of a would-be-free society.
If you want to look at each of those and discuss them, it would be an interesting discussion. Meaning, are the things you've pointed out actually "rights"? I'm not saying either way, I'm inviting a careful look.

Any time. Any place