Parents Rights On Transgender Policy

[Unfettered]

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"

OK. Understood.

Any time. Any place

OK. Very good. Thank you. Should be engaging. How about you lead. We probably shouldn't do it in this thread. Send me a link?

 

[fantome profane]

OK. Very good. Thank you. Should be engaging. How about you lead. We probably shouldn't do it in this thread. Send me a link?

I am sure it will happen. I am not going to start a thread right now. You can start a thread, or make a post on any of the dozen or so we have going (like this one) expressing your view. I will probably be around.

 

[Unfettered]

I am sure it will happen. I am not going to start a thread right now. You can start a thread, or make a post on any of the dozen or so we have going (like this one) expressing your view. I will probably be around.

OK. I wouldn't do it here; it would probably be a hijacking.

 

[fantome profane]

OK. I wouldn't do it here; it would probably be a hijacking.

Well, the part that is relevant here is that I don't believe teachers or school officials should be interfering with the private lives of their students. If a transgender student has not told their parent there might be a good reason, or maybe they are just waiting for the right time and place. We don't need a stranger interposing themselves. It is a private personal issue.

 

[Unfettered]

Well, the part that is relevant here is that I don't believe teachers or school officials should be interfering with the private lives of their students. If a transgender student has not told their parent there might be a good reason, or maybe they are just wait for the right time and place. We don't need a stranger interposing themselves. It is a private personal issue.

That makes sense and I understand it. Where it breaks down for me is on the "it's personal" point. The education of a child is private and personal; it's no one's business but the parents' and the child's. If parents invite a teacher to become involved, they have now voluntarily breached the personal barrier.

I'm not saying teachers should be forced to report any given thing, though I'm not saying they shouldn't, either. I lean toward the latter. I'm saying that, because the personal barrier is already breached, it seems unreasonable that a teacher would invest no judgement or energy in assessing whether or not parents should know a particular thing their child is doing in school. I think that's nonsense. But I think the entire state-school system is nonsense and that parents are gambling with their children's well-being when they place them there, so there you go.

 

[Ponder This]

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

It seems to me that if a child is going to start using different pronouns, using different bathrooms, participating on sports teams for different genders, then the parents need to be told.

When exactly were you planning on informing parents? Surely, you weren't thinking that parents would show up to a sports event and suddenly discover that their child is competing on a different gender team, everyone else is using different pronouns to refer to their child, and their child is going into different gendered bathrooms. You do care about the child, yes? ??? What exactly is the long-term strategy here? Just walk me through it. The plan is:

1. Keep it a secret.
2. The parents show up to a sports event.
3. ???

 

[fantome profane]

I am just going to put this here. These are parents in Tennessee talking about this issue of outing students, as well as a few comments related to school shooting.

I thought it was powerful.

 

[Friend of Mara]

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.

No. Transgender is gender specific. To conflate it with other things is inaccurate.

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.

I don't believe the parent has the right to know every single thing about the child. So which right exists? At this point it seems to just be a matter of opinion.

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.

So the simple answer to my question was no. This simplifies things considerably.

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.

Home school is an option. No education isn't an option. Because that is abuse. And I know you said earlier you didn't like abuse.

Calling it a state religion is the biggest stretch I've seen since the One Piece live action.

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?

I am asking for equal protection. I want to the schools to keep their mouths shut when they use cisgender pronouns at school too. Equal rights for everyone. Just because you feel that doesn't particularly matter for them doesn't mean it isn't a right granted and afforded to them. IT isn't a special right granted just to trans children. Its a right granted to every child equally. So we should be in agreement there.

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.

Be a felon and try to get a gun. Be 14 and try to get liquor. Try to buy a car with no insurance. Go fishing with no license. Go across a boarder with no passport. Scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Bring your gun to the airport. Go outside naked. Go 100 in a 25.

I mean I can go on. Lots of freedoms are lost in the name of protecting people. Every single law that exists is a limit on someone's freedom somewhere. Usually for a payoff somewhere else.

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.

The danger isn't unknown. You just aren't acknowledging it. And you have advocated for a dangerous policy that endangers children.

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

I do. I've seen it. The worst that happens is if a parent finds out a kid has lied about them going by a different name at school is they get their feelings hurt. The worst thing that can happen if a kid is outed to a transphobic or homophobic parent is they get murdered. There is a one way directional threat of violence in the situation and to pretend otherwise is wrong. You can pretend all day long that there isn't a danger or that "outing" or "privacy" isn't a right of children. To think so is a prejudice of your own.
So in order for me to avoid prejudice and just say you can tell the democrat parents but not the republican ones since statistically that is safer we should just let that be a conversation we let the kids have rather than forcing big daddy government to step in and enforce the conversation. I though as someone who was against public schooling having them be less involved in the interpersonal relationship between student and parent would be better? Or have I misunderstood that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Yeah. For the kid it's called survival and protecting themselves. If a parent is so bad it comes down to that then the child can't bw faulted for taking such actions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When our rights are suppressed, we still have them.

That is a contradiction. If we have rights they are not suppressed. If our rights are suppressed we don't have them.

What we don't have when they are suppressed is "protection" for them.

There is no protecting what we don't have.

Enslaved people believe they have no rights because their rights are not protected.

Enslaved people have no rights. They are regarded as property and property does not have rights.

Free people know they have rights and fight, when necessary, to protect them.

Covid lockdowns showed us some free people wouldn't know a right if it bit their face off.

 

[Unfettered]

No. Transgender is gender specific. To conflate it with other things is inaccurate.

I understand that. I said "trans," not "transgender." Some trans people transition to other species of the animal kingdom.

I don't believe the parent has the right to know every single thing about the child.

Neither do I. Nor have I claimed that.

So which right exists? At this point it seems to just be a matter of opinion.

The right I am talking about is the parents' right to know things about the child when they have an obligation to the child for those things. For example, if the parents have an obligation to provide medical care for the child (they do), the parents have the right to the child's medical information. Parents cannot care for a child when they are kept in the dark as to the issues related to the care. This right is naturally endowed, not something government gives to parents. It is this right to which I have been referring in all my posts, and the justification for questioning a teacher's withholding of important information about a child from her parents. If the information truly belongs to the child alone, meaning the it does not affect the parents discharge of their obligations relative to the child, then it can reasonably be argued that it is not necessary to relay that information to the parents. Otherwise it is, or the parents' rights have been violated, and their natural obligation to care for the child is compromised.

Does that clarify?

So the simple answer to my question was no. This simplifies things considerably.

Would a simple "no" have helped? It seems that we can't be too careful in these discussions about making clear what it is we're saying, or why we're objecting to something.

Home school is an option. No education isn't an option. Because that is abuse. And I know you said earlier you didn't like abuse.

LOL, for sure...I do not like abuse. And yes, I agree: no education is abuse. I would amend your first statement: Home school is the natural right of parents. It is the default. That is something our society really does not understand.

Calling it a state religion is the biggest stretch I've seen since the One Piece live action.

This thread is not the place for it, but if you and I were to examine what the public school system is and does, carefully and objectively, I would be surprised if, by the end, you did not agree that it constitutes a religion. It's possible that you still would not agree, but it most certainly IS a religion.

I am asking for equal protection. I want to the schools to keep their mouths shut when they use cisgender pronouns at school too. Equal rights for everyone. Just because you feel that doesn't particularly matter for them doesn't mean it isn't a right granted and afforded to them. IT isn't a special right granted just to trans children. Its a right granted to every child equally. So we should be in agreement there.

You're going to have to help me here. What is the right you're talking about? And whence does it derive? Nature or society? As I read what you've written just now, what I understand you to be saying is that a person has a real right to not have pronouns used when he is being referred to at school. If that is not what you're saying, please clarify.

Be a felon and try to get a gun. Be 14 and try to get liquor. Try to buy a car with no insurance. Go fishing with no license. Go across a boarder with no passport. Scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Bring your gun to the airport. Go outside naked. Go 100 in a 25.

I mean I can go on. Lots of freedoms are lost in the name of protecting people. Every single law that exists is a limit on someone's freedom somewhere. Usually for a payoff somewhere else.

When I look at your list, I see kind of a mish mash of scenarios that are all over the board in terms of whether or not they are rights infringements or not. That makes it difficult to either agree or disagree with what you're asserting. Context matters. I get the point, though. When we enter into society, or when we dwell in society at all, that association brings with it the reality that certain rights are suspended, entirely or in certain situations. We could call them "lost," but they really aren't. They're just suspended. Suspended meaning the natural right that we "lose" is balanced by a civil right we "gain." So the rights balance sheet remains balanced. No harm done.

The danger isn't unknown. You just aren't acknowledging it. And you have advocated for a dangerous policy that endangers children.

No, I'm being honest. Clearly I understand that abuse occurs, and that some parents will react abusively to news that their child is doing this or that. I ALSO understand that some parents will not. You appear to only want to look at those who will abuse, and exact from the innocent parents a right they have and should enjoy. I disagree with that. That is clearly immoral. I advocate for rights to be protected, and for abusers to be held accountable.

I do. I've seen it. The worst that happens is if a parent finds out a kid has lied about them going by a different name at school is they get their feelings hurt. The worst thing that can happen if a kid is outed to a transphobic or homophobic parent is they get murdered.

And what is the best thing that can happen? Can you show that you are objective, and not interested in punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

There is a one way directional threat of violence in the situation and to pretend otherwise is wrong. You can pretend all day long that there isn't a danger or that "outing" or "privacy" isn't a right of children. To think so is a prejudice of your own.

Except that I have not pretended that. You have accused me of pretending that. You are free to, but you are wrong. Clearly. My posts are my support on this.

So in order for me to avoid prejudice and just say you can tell the democrat parents but not the republican ones since statistically that is safer we should just let that be a conversation we let the kids have rather than forcing big daddy government to step in and enforce the conversation. I though as someone who was against public schooling having them be less involved in the interpersonal relationship between student and parent would be better? Or have I misunderstood that?

I don't know... It seems that you've drifted away from objectivity toward getting upset over things I have not said or advocated. And now I'm to be held accountable for your conclusions. What am I supposed to say?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This right is naturally endowed,

There are no such things as naturally endowed rights. The only rights we have are the ones we make the state give us, make the state honor amd those we defend so the state does not take them away.
In short, rights are nothing mkre than glorified privileges and we can lose them all tomorrow.

If the information truly belongs to the child alone, meaning the it does not affect the parents discharge of their obligations relative to the child, then it can reasonably be argued that it is not necessary to relay that information to the parents. Otherwise it is, or the parents' rights have been violated, and their natural obligation to care for the child is compromised.

If the child feels safe then information will flow anyways. If the child doesn't feel safe then it's no one else's business to tell the parents.
And this extends to other areas like vaccines. There have been kids who are smarter than their parents qnd want to be vaccinated. But of it happens, the parents didn't do it and the kid wamts to keep it a secret there's probably a reason for that we should respect.

Home school is the natural right of parents. It is the default. That is something our society really does not understand.

That's because parents doing all that is unnatural (it takes a community) and few have the meams and abilities to effectively teach and home school.

This thread is not the place for it, but if you and I were to examine what the public school system is and does, carefully and objectively, I would be surprised if, by the end, you did not agree that it constitutes a religion. It's possible that you still would not agree, but it most certainly IS a religion.

It is not a religion. No more than science amd atheism.

We could call them "lost," but they really aren't. They're just suspended. Suspended meaning the natural right that we "lose" is balanced by a civil right we "gain." So the rights balance sheet remains balanced. No harm done.

No, it's lost. Suspended means it will eventually be restored, like a suspended license.

That is clearly immoral.

Whats immoral is to insist kids have no rights, no right to privacy, no right to HIPPA, no right to safety and no right to keep sensitive information from abusive parents.

Except that I have not pretended that. You have accused me of pretending that. You are free to, but you are wrong. Clearly. My posts are my support on this.

You are ignoring that some kids MUST ABSOLUTELY keep certain things from their parents. You keep ignoring that coming out of the closest can properly only be the exclusive right and privilege of the one coming out. You keep ignoring the potential for abuse is a reason schools should not inform parents. After all, depending on the state not all forms of abuse will be acknowledged as abuse (such as emotional neglect and religious trauma).

 

[Unfettered]

I am just going to put this here. These are parents in Tennessee talking about this issue of outing students, as well as a few comments related to school shooting.

I thought it was powerful.

In my opinion, the first exchange in the video is powerfully representative of why the United States is in such trouble and on a trajectory toward dissolution (if not arrested and reversed). Rep Bulso charges those who support transgender ideology with being those who are harming children, calling the idea that one can change sex a "fiction and fantasy." Dr. Bowton, who has a transgender child, strawmans Rep Bulso's assertion, stating that the situation her family faces is not fiction or fantasy, but is "deeply personal." I have no doubt that the what her family is going through is not fiction or fantasy, and that it is deeply personal, and I am sorry about whatever it is they are suffering. But Dr. Bowton does not address the substance of Rep Bulso's statement, which shines the light on those who are guilty of abusing children with a false ideology; she distracts away from the macro problem. So what could have been a meaningful discussion about who is actually harming the children and what we all can do about it, ended up being a focus on the emotional struggle of a single family. A good opportunity to discuss the issue was made to be a false personal attack on a family by appealing to emotion and personal particulars, rather than on the causes that perhaps contributed to Dr. Bowton's family being in the spot it is in the first place.

That was "sinking feeling" number one for me.

Number two comes in the next exchange when Rep. Bulso suggests to Dr. Bowton that "the members of this body" (the Tennessee state legislature) have an obligation to "protect children in Tennessee from harm." I'm sure that sounded good to him, and he was expecting Dr. Bulso to agree. The only problem is that the Tennessee state legislature does not have an obligation to protect the children in the state from harm. It is their job to protect the rights of Tennesseans, including children, from infringement. Tennessee state government can do the latter via appropriate legislation and the justice system, and has an obligation to do so, but it neither has power nor a charge to protect citizens from harm. Until both citizens and elected representatives learn this, our government will continue to fail, and the people will continue to suffer.

Sinking feeling number three comes in the brilliant reply of Dr. Bowton to Rep. Bulso, who silences the entire room and leaves Rep Bulso utterly speechless when she asks, "What are you going to do to protect my child?" E X A C T L Y ! What will he do, indeed? The reality is…he can do nothing to protect Dr. Bowton's child, or any other child in Tennessee. Absolutely nothing. If he thinks that's what his job is, he should be voted out of office, because it isn't. If he thinks he can accomplish that, he should be voted out of office, because he can't. Rep. Bulso's question exposes his lack of understanding about what government's role is, and how it should be leveraged to benefit the people. At the same time, it must be asked: "Dr. Bowton, what are you going to do to protect your child?" Because those with the greatest responsibility to identify threats to the children and protect them from those threats…are the parents. And as I observe society fracture and see children—children!—called upon to sort out confusion and stress and degeneracy that even adults have a hard time sorting out, I want to cry out, "Where are the parents? Who is protecting the children?" Insofar as I can tell, for many children it seems…well, no one.

If we are to have any hope, that sad reality must be reversed.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I understand that. I said "trans," not "transgender." Some trans people transition to other species of the animal kingdom.

This is untrue but I feel this is an unfruitful tangent so lets leave it here.

Neither do I. Nor have I claimed that.
The right I am talking about is the parents' right to know things about the child when they have an obligation to the child for those things. For example, if the parents have an obligation to provide medical care for the child (they do), the parents have the right to the child's medical information. Parents cannot care for a child when they are kept in the dark as to the issues related to the care. This right is naturally endowed, not something government gives to parents. It is this right to which I have been referring in all my posts, and the justification for questioning a teacher's withholding of important information about a child from her parents. If the information truly belongs to the child alone, meaning the it does not affect the parents discharge of their obligations relative to the child, then it can reasonably be argued that it is not necessary to relay that information to the parents. Otherwise it is, or the parents' rights have been violated, and their natural obligation to care for the child is compromised.

Does that clarify?

A further clarification is how the particular knowledge about a child's choice of pronouns at school fall under this particular special sect of information. How is this critical information for the parents in order to care for the child?

This thread is not the place for it, but if you and I were to examine what the public school system is and does, carefully and objectively, I would be surprised if, by the end, you did not agree that it constitutes a religion. It's possible that you still would not agree, but it most certainly IS a religion.

Feel free to make it. I have seen this exact same claim a hundred times before I look forward to hearing hopefully a fresh argument for it.

You're going to have to help me here. What is the right you're talking about? And whence does it derive? Nature or society? As I read what you've written just now, what I understand you to be saying is that a person has a real right to not have pronouns used when he is being referred to at school. If that is not what you're saying, please clarify.

As it currently stands protected by the law in the OP of the thread for these schools they are NOT required to disclose personal information about gender identity of children to their parents. It is a right of privacy afforded to the child. For the sake of simplification I will forgo any philosophical interpretation of rights and only refer to rights as things we are legally afforded. Such a discussion seems unnecessary given the very specific example we have been given as a topic.

When I look at your list, I see kind of a mish mash of scenarios that are all over the board in terms of whether or not they are rights infringements or not. That makes it difficult to either agree or disagree with what you're asserting. Context matters. I get the point, though. When we enter into society, or when we dwell in society at all, that association brings with it the reality that certain rights are suspended, entirely or in certain situations. We could call them "lost," but they really aren't. They're just suspended. Suspended meaning the natural right that we "lose" is balanced by a civil right we "gain." So the rights balance sheet remains balanced. No harm done.

This balancing the equation style of making laws is not the way that legislation is made. So it sound a lot like nonsense. If you would like to re-word it then fine. Otherwise I will assume this is a philosophical musing about a process that is very much understood by more practical means.

No, I'm being honest. Clearly I understand that abuse occurs, and that some parents will react abusively to news that their child is doing this or that. I ALSO understand that some parents will not. You appear to only want to look at those who will abuse, and exact from the innocent parents a right they have and should enjoy. I disagree with that. That is clearly immoral. I advocate for rights to be protected, and for abusers to be held accountable.

Then let me re-center this. I have seen zero evidence for your claim that the parents should have the right to know. That their right "should" be protected. Other than the fact you have said so. I have explained why they should not and you have admitted it is well reasoned and the logic follows. Please explain to me why the right of the parent to have unfettered access to this part of the child's life and it be guaranteed by the government by law is in fact more important than knowingly endangering individuals. Because we have both come to the conclusion that will happen if the decision in the OP is reversed.

And what is the best thing that can happen? Can you show that you are objective, and not interested in punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

That is an interesting theory. What brought you too it? I am tempted to dive into a little 2nd semester psycho analysis on it.

 

[Friend of Mara]

It seems to me that if a child is going to start using different pronouns, using different bathrooms, participating on sports teams for different genders, then the parents need to be told.

When exactly were you planning on informing parents? Surely, you weren't thinking that parents would show up to a sports event and suddenly discover that their child is competing on a different gender team, everyone else is using different pronouns to refer to their child, and their child is going into different gendered bathrooms. You do care about the child, yes? ??? What exactly is the long-term strategy here? Just walk me through it. The plan is:

1. Keep it a secret.
2. The parents show up to a sports event.
3. ???

If a child is hiding their gender from their parent because they are afraid of them I think you are already assuming a far more amicable life for them in this scenario already.

But even so its up to the kid. They should have some autonomy. Let them have that conversation. Thats all this decision is saying. No snitching.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It seems to me that if a child is going to start using different pronouns, using different bathrooms, participating on sports teams for different genders, then the parents need to be told.

When exactly were you planning on informing parents? Surely, you weren't thinking that parents would show up to a sports event and suddenly discover that their child is competing on a different gender team, everyone else is using different pronouns to refer to their child, and their child is going into different gendered bathrooms. You do care about the child, yes? ??? What exactly is the long-term strategy here? Just walk me through it. The plan is:

1. Keep it a secret.
2. The parents show up to a sports event.
3. ???

If the kid isn't telling the parents they probably aren't showing up to stuff like that, if the child is enrolles in anything like that at all.

 

[Unfettered]

This is untrue but I feel this is an unfruitful tangent so lets leave it here.

You can look it up (trans species) if you want to know more about it.

A further clarification is how the particular knowledge about a child's choice of pronouns at school fall under this particular special sect of information. How is this critical information for the parents in order to care for the child?

That depends on the parents. Some may not care. Others may feel it is critical. All I'm saying is that the parents have a right to the information if it is critical for the care they owe to their children.

Feel free to make it. I have seen this exact same claim a hundred times before I look forward to hearing hopefully a fresh argument for it.

I didn't ask for an argument about it, but a joint examination of the question. Which means you'd need to be involved and discuss with objectivity. It's not worth my time if I'm being invited to convince you to change your mind about what you already believe. Does that clarify what I was inviting?

As it currently stands protected by the law in the OP of the thread for these schools they are NOT required to disclose personal information about gender identity of children to their parents. It is a right of privacy afforded to the child. For the sake of simplification I will forgo any philosophical interpretation of rights and only refer to rights as things we are legally afforded. Such a discussion seems unnecessary given the very specific example we have been given as a topic.

Well, if rights can be granted whether they are real or not, we live in a mobocracy. Sadly, I think that is becoming increasingly more accurate. Actually, because of the now aristocratic nature of the federal government, it's more of an ochlocracy. Either way, we'll get the society we choose by the laws we enact. I think it's absurd to grant rights whose basis lies only in exigencies, even when the exigencies themselves are real.

This balancing the equation style of making laws is not the way that legislation is made. So it sound a lot like nonsense. If you would like to re-word it then fine. Otherwise I will assume this is a philosophical musing about a process that is very much understood by more practical means.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. What I said isn't about making laws, but about why our rights are not diminished by our inclusion is society, as you had suggested they were. I can explain again a different way if that would help clarify what I was saying.

Then let me re-center this. I have seen zero evidence for your claim that the parents should have the right to know. That their right "should" be protected. Other than the fact you have said so. I have explained why they should not and you have admitted it is well reasoned and the logic follows. Please explain to me why the right of the parent to have unfettered access to this part of the child's life and it be guaranteed by the government by law is in fact more important than knowingly endangering individuals. Because we have both come to the conclusion that will happen if the decision in the OP is reversed.

Actually, that's not an accurate summary of my position. I have agreed that some people will respond the way you suggest, but that others will respond a different way, regardless of how we arrange the circumstances of the scenario.

As for evidence and proving things, you've offered no evidence, either. Just claims and examples and scenarios. I'm fine with that, though, because these questions are moral questions, not scientific questions. The truth of moral questions is not determined on the basis of scientific evidence, but of accord. So if we can't come to accord, there is no truth upon which to base our civilization. I'm curious, though…what do you think qualifies here as evidence? If I asked you for evidence that human beings have the right to life, what evidence would you present?

That is an interesting theory. What brought you too it? I am tempted to dive into a little 2nd semester psycho analysis on it.

I'd call it a conclusion based on observation, not a theory, but maybe that doesn't matter. Either way, I said what I said because, per my understanding of what you have said, you advocate for the infringement of (innocent) parents' right to know critical information about their children because some parents (the guilty) abuse their children when they gain access to critical information about their children.

 

[fantome profane]

You can look it up (trans species) if you want to know more about it.

It is not enough to just see something on the internet. You need a reliable source, better multiple reliable sources. I don't doubt you saw or heard something about this on some weird conspiracy website.

That depends on the parents. Some may not care. Others may feel it is critical. All I'm saying is that the parents have a right to the information if it is critical for the care they owe to their children.

Do teachers have an obligation to out students? Should the be legally obligated to do so? And what should happen if they don't?

I'd call it a conclusion based on observation, not a theory, but maybe that doesn't matter. Either way, I said what I said because, per my understanding of what you have said, you advocate for the infringement of (innocent) parents' right

You are making the assumption that parents want the school to provide this information. Maybe they would rather hear it from their child. Maybe a parent would want to give their child time and space to come to them on their own.

 

[Unfettered]

It is not enough to just see something on the internet. You need a reliable source, better multiple reliable sources. I don't doubt you saw or heard something about this on some weird conspiracy website.

As before, if it is something of interest to you, you can research it as you like.

Do teachers have an obligation to out students? Should the be legally obligated to do so? And what should happen if they don't?

I understand "outing" to be a thing motivated by enmity of some kind, or by irresponsible casualness. I think doing that is wrong (at worst) or careless (at best). A teacher talking in confidence to the parents of a child about matters of concern regarding the child is not "outing." It is showing love. It is caring. I've only ever been speaking of the latter. I have not once advocated for teachers to "out" students about any issue.

You are making the assumption that parents want the school to provide this information. Maybe they would rather hear it from their child. Maybe a parent would want to give their child time and space to come to them on their own.

I'm not making assumptions either way. I'm stating the obvious: some parents will care, others will not. You have added another possibility: parents might rather hear it from a child. There are myriad circumstances.

 

[Ponder This]

If a child is hiding their gender from their parent because they are afraid of them I think you are already assuming a far more amicable life for them in this scenario already.

But even so its up to the kid. They should have some autonomy. Let them have that conversation. Thats all this decision is saying. No snitching.

It was a preliminary injunction because the case itself hasn't been decided yet. What we are talking about here is the child telling a teacher about the desire for pronoun use, bathroom access, and sports team participation. Parents are going to find out. At what point should parents find out about it?

If the kid isn't telling the parents they probably aren't showing up to stuff like that, if the child is enrolles in anything like that at all.

I don't think not telling the parents about it means that parents never attend a sport's event or visit the school their child attends.
Why would a child who has expressed a desire to join a sports team... not join that sports team, if possible?