Parents Rights On Transgender Policy

[fantome profane]

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 love you some semantics doncha?

Whatever terminology you want to use, should teachers be required by law to inform parents? And if so what kind of enforcement mechanism do you think would be appropriate?

 

[Unfettered]

You love you some semantics doncha?

Whatever terminology you want to use, should teachers be required by law to inform parents? And if so what kind of enforcement mechanism do you think would be appropriate?

Well, it's not semantics. Even the law recognizes the same act in different ways (1st degree murder vs manslaughter, for example). The motive shows the labeling to be meaningful, not semantics.

As far as a law is concerned, I do not believe there should be a law covering this specific issue (requiring teachers to disclose to parents if their child uses incorrect pronouns, etc). That is absurd. I do believe parents and teachers should word together to develop an understanding about what the parents need from a teacher, relative to the child. I know that I would not hire a teacher whom I did not feel I could trust to relay important information to me about my child. If other parents do things differently, that is up to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

If there's problems at home severing lines of communication for a number of reasons (shamed by parents, doesn't feel good enough, lack of confidence) theres a chance the child may not enroll in extra curricular activities.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Yeah, that is a big problem because the act of coming out can only rightly and properly be the exclusive right and privilege of the person coming out. Not honoring that is to take that which does not belong to you.

 

[fantome profane]

As far as a law is concerned, I do not believe there should be a law covering this specific issue (requiring teachers to disclose to parents if their child uses incorrect pronouns, etc). That is absurd.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[Unfettered]

Then we are in agreement.

Well, I jumped in the shower after posting (getting ready to go to a Clint Black concert) and the issue kept rattling around in my mind. And I am obliged to amend my position. When I posted last, I had in mind a free-market relationship between parents and teacher. That would apply to private school, tutors, etc. Public school is different. It is foisted upon us by taxation. So for public school teachers, yes, I do believe they should be required to surrender to parents any information in their possession related the parents' child, ideally always, but at least upon request. Do I still think that is absurd? Yes. Necessary? Unfortunately, yes. It's one absurdity on top of another, if you ask me, but that is the natural regression that attends bad laws. Get rid of the first bad law and all the others will topple with it.

Sorry we're not as agreed as it might have seemed.

 

[Heyo]

Well, I jumped in the shower after posting (getting ready to go to a Clint Black concert) and the issue kept rattling around in my mind. And I am obliged to amend my position. When I posted last, I had in mind a free-market relationship between parents and teacher. That would apply to private school, tutors, etc. Public school is different. It is foisted upon us by taxation. So for public school teachers, yes, I do believe they should be required to surrender to parents any information in their possession related the parents' child, ideally always, but at least upon request. Do I still think that is absurd? Yes. Necessary? Unfortunately, yes. It's one absurdity on top of another, if you ask me, but that is the natural regression that attends bad laws. Get rid of the first bad law and all the others will topple with it.

Sorry we're not as agreed as it might have seemed.

So, a child going to a private school has a right to informational self determination and a child going to a public school doesn't?
Talk about absurdity.

 

[Friend of Mara]

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?

When the child chooses. Or at the very least it won't be mandated by the government to be outed.

 

[Friend of Mara]

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

I said that because I know what you are talking about not because I don't know. The fact you think they are comparable is concerning.

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.

There are no objective legal rights. There are only the decisions made when governing. In democracy we have the opportunity to, at least indirectly, govern ourselves. Every single "right" we have in a legal definition is a granted legal protection from the law. Its not an innate fact of the universe.

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.


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?

Either you have misunderstood my point entirely or are intentionally giving me the run around at this point.

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.

Explain how it is critical the parents know this information?

 

[Unfettered]

So, a child going to a private school has a right to informational self determination and a child going to a public school doesn't?
Talk about absurdity.

Wait, who said that?

 

[fantome profane]

Wait, who said that?

Do you remember when you said:

When I posted last, I had in mind a free-market relationship between parents and teacher. That would apply to private school, tutors, etc. Public school is different. It is foisted upon us by taxation. So for public school teachers, yes, I do believe they should be required to surrender to parents any information in their possession related the parents' child, ideally always, but at least upon request.

If you are having trouble remembering let me paint you a picture, you had just gotten out of the shower, you were probably still a little wet. Remember?

You clearly indicated that you believed rights would be different for private school students and public school students. Apparently the financial arrangement makes a critical difference in your mind.


So how was Clint?

 

[Unfettered]

I said that because I know what you are talking about not because I don't know. The fact you think they are comparable is concerning.

Both involve "trans"itioning away from what one is to something one is not. In that respect I understand them to be comparable.

There are no objective legal rights. There are only the decisions made when governing. In democracy we have the opportunity to, at least indirectly, govern ourselves. Every single "right" we have in a legal definition is a granted legal protection from the law. Its not an innate fact of the universe.

Rights are abstractions, for sure. But they are absolutes if what humans want is civilization, as opposed to the law of the jungle.

Either you have misunderstood my point entirely or are intentionally giving me the run around at this point.

It must be the first, because I don't understand that I'm leading anyone in circles.

Explain how it is critical the parents know this information?

Is the "this information" you're referring to the fact of a child becoming involved in trans thinking or ideology?

 

[Unfettered]

You clearly indicated that you believed rights would be different for private school students and public school students.

Perplexed here. At no point did I mention or address the idea that a child has a right to informational self-determination. No idea where that came from. Are you sure you're referring to my post? I addressed the question of whether or not a law should exist that requires teachers to relay information to parents about a child when the parents have a right to the information.

So how was Clint?

Great concert. Love his work. He's an impressive songwriter, composer and musician, and an easy-going performer.

 

[Heyo]

Perplexed here. At no point did I mention or address the idea that a child has a right to informational self-determination. No idea where that came from. Are you sure you're referring to my post?

I inferred it from

As far as a law is concerned, I do not believe there should be a law covering this specific issue (requiring teachers to disclose to parents if their child uses incorrect pronouns, etc). That is absurd.

But you are right, you didn't recognise any human right there.

I addressed the question of whether or not a law should exist that requires teachers to relay information to parents about a child when the parents have a right to the information.

So you see it from the teachers point of view? If the teacher is paid by the government they can be made to inform the parents, but not if they are privately financed?

So we are still back at the beginning. The parents have rights, the teachers have rights, the government has rights - but the kids don't.

 

[Unfettered]

So you see it from the teachers point of view? If the teacher is paid by the government they can be made to inform the parents, but not if they are privately financed?

The point of view is that of the citizenry, actually—looking at the difference, yes, between private employees and public employees. Speaking generally and not exclusively, public employees are subject to regulation where private employees are not.

So we are still back at the beginning. The parents have rights, the teachers have rights, the government has rights - but the kids don't.

No, the children also have rights. I have never suggested that they don't. The focus has been on the parents and teachers because children may not, at a given time, be capable of exercising full discretion over a given right. In such cases it devolves upon the parents to provide support, which they cannot hope to do properly without adequate information, or critical information. A teacher enters the equation when he or she has information the parents need to care for their child, but no not yet possess.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I jumped in the shower after posting (getting ready to go to a Clint Black concert) and the issue kept rattling around in my mind. And I am obliged to amend my position. When I posted last, I had in mind a free-market relationship between parents and teacher. That would apply to private school, tutors, etc. Public school is different. It is foisted upon us by taxation. So for public school teachers, yes, I do believe they should be required to surrender to parents any information in their possession related the parents' child, ideally always, but at least upon request. Do I still think that is absurd? Yes. Necessary? Unfortunately, yes. It's one absurdity on top of another, if you ask me, but that is the natural regression that attends bad laws. Get rid of the first bad law and all the others will topple with it.

Sorry we're not as agreed as it might have seemed.

Yeah, no. Unequal treatment and privileges for sale are better flushed down the toilet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, the children also have rights. I have never suggested that they don't. The focus has been on the parents and teachers because children may not, at a given time, be capable of exercising full discretion over a given right. In such cases it devolves upon the parents to provide support, which they cannot hope to do properly without adequate information, or critical information.

That's still the school taking away what does not belong to them. It's not their privilege or right to come ouy for students.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Both involve "trans"itioning away from what one is to something one is not. In that respect I understand them to be comparable.

Like wolves and werewolves.

Rights are abstractions, for sure. But they are absolutes if what humans want is civilization, as opposed to the law of the jungle.

If they were absolutes then it would be the law of the jungle. Its the human touch and careful consideration when we craft them that makes it specifically not the law of the jungle but the law of man. But if there is a point to be made for how the rights are derived feel free to link them.

It must be the first, because I don't understand that I'm leading anyone in circles.

Then I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply drop it as a failed communication.

Is the "this information" you're referring to the fact of a child becoming involved in trans thinking or ideology?

That is ill stated at best. But the child's choice to go by a different preferred pronoun yes. How is this information vital for the parents in order to do their job? Especially since the child also has a right to privacy. I would like to know what about this is so vital that they need to trample upon the rights of the child and mandate a government issued notification to the parents.

 

[Unfettered]

Like wolves and werewolves.

No, like humans and wolves. Things that are real.

If they were absolutes then it would be the law of the jungle. Its the human touch and careful consideration when we craft them that makes it specifically not the law of the jungle but the law of man. But if there is a point to be made for how the rights are derived feel free to link them.

I don't understand the reasoning here. The law of the jungle is "anything goes." IE, no rights. Absolute rights would be the opposite, which is civilization ("the law of man" as you called it). So it seems that you've disagreed by assertion, but agreed in your explanation. Again, I don't understand the reasoning.

That is ill stated at best. But the child's choice to go by a different preferred pronoun yes. How is this information vital for the parents in order to do their job? Especially since the child also has a right to privacy. I would like to know what about this is so vital that they need to trample upon the rights of the child and mandate a government issued notification to the parents.

Thanks for clarifying. In response, then, I would offer that it is critical in the care of a child that parents have knowledge of those things that affect the child, that matter to the child, that the child loves and desires, etc. If going by a different pronoun would not affect the child, doesn't matter to the child, is not something the child cares about on a meaningful level, etc., then I'd agree, superficially, that it would not be critical for the parents to know, in order to properly care for the child.

 

[Friend of Mara]

No, like humans and wolves. Things that are real.

If thats the case I stand by what I said. Since one is real and one isn't. But like I said we don't have to get into that here.

I don't understand the reasoning here. The law of the jungle is "anything goes." IE, no rights. Absolute rights would be the opposite, which is civilization ("the law of man" as you called it). So it seems that you've disagreed by assertion, but agreed in your explanation. Again, I don't understand the reasoning.

If "rights" came from something other than the choices we made when designing our society then they would exist "in the jungle" so to speak. But since they don't it stands to reason its because we made them that way. We have the power to shape our laws and our rights how we see fit as a society and have the freedom to do what we will with that. Historically we have done great harm and some good with this. I can only hope we continue to do better.

Thanks for clarifying. In response, then, I would offer that it is critical in the care of a child that parents have knowledge of those things that affect the child, that matter to the child, that the child loves and desires, etc. If going by a different pronoun would not affect the child, doesn't matter to the child, is not something the child cares about on a meaningful level, etc., then I'd agree, superficially, that it would not be critical for the parents to know, in order to properly care for the child.

I think we are making progress in this conversation. I admit I was loosing hope there for a bit. So presumably at this point the pronoun of the child may mean a great deal to the child as ones identity tends to. Therefore if the parent wishes to be a good parent they would need to take that into consideration. At this point one of two things are true. Either the parent already knows or the child has made the decision to not tell the parent. If the child has already informed the parent I assume the school shouldn't need to send a memo out correct? Or would you still want them to send one out just in case?

The second scenario is the important one. The child is intentionally not telling the parent and wishes to keep this a secret. They have done this for some reason. I don't know the reason. You don't know the reason. But there is a reason. It could be a good reason. It could be a silly reason. But at the end of the day its a conversation the child has decided they are not ready to have with the parents yet. Should they be barred from having that conversation with anyone else just because they aren't ready to have that conversation at home? A lot of kids, especially in middle and high school, don't talk to their parents about their problems first. Sometimes not even at all. None of this is relayed to the parents unless there is concern that the child is in danger. I think the same thing should apply here. No more and no less.