Parents Rights On Transgender Policy

[Unfettered]

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.

They do exist "in the jungle"—because we are human beings and not simple animals. Of course, until they are recognized and the law of the jungle replaced, by accord, with the law of man, no warranty is offered that they will be enjoyed.

But since they don't it stands to reason its because we made them that way.

I understand the thought, but we can't have it both ways. If man created them, they are not rights, but privileges.

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.

I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. Peoples in practically every society and time have created slaves of other human beings. The laws sanctioning the practice were made by those who had the freedom to make them, the will to make them, saw fit to make them, and the power to enforce them. That is your recipe above for "laws and rights." If so, then slaves have always been made in accordance with acceptable standards of laws and rights. Every element you listed was present in their shaping. And "hope" is all we have to throw at the question of whether or not we will "shape our laws and our rights" in ways that either "cause great harm" or result in "some good"? God help us if that is the standard! Even if the idea of "unalienable rights" were false, only fools would reject it in favor of a system where the standard of laws and rights ultimately rests on "hope" that we won't harm people with what we create or shape.

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?

I don't know how the parents found out; you didn't detail that. But I agree that, now that the parents are aware on at least a rudimentary level, assuming they believe it is an issue that warrants additional investigation or action, they should listen carefully to their child and take into consideration everything that the child might tell them about it, and about any other issues that might be related or bear on the primary issue.

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?

No, and I have never suggested they should be. Nor have I commented at all on who the child should or should not talk to. All my comments have been offered within your scenario in which the child is not telling the parents.

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.

I agree. I also believe that parents have the right to assess in advance what may constitute "danger" for their child (drug use, for example), and have the right to ask those whom they have hired to represent them (the parents) in the care of their child to notify them (the parents) should any of those scenarios manifest in the life of the child. In either of these situations, a teacher would relay to parents whatever thing was believed by either the teacher, the parents, or both, to place the child in danger of some kind.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree. I also believe that parents have the right to assess in advance what may constitute "danger" for their child (drug use, for example),

Are you intending to compare being transgender with drug abuse?

 

[Unfettered]

Are you intending to compare being transgender with drug abuse?

No. I offered that as an example of the concept because I believed it would be a clear example, and one we could easily agree upon.

 

[fantome profane]

No. I offered that as an example of the concept because I believed it would be a clear example, and one we could easily agree upon.

It is easy to deal with issues we agree on. The issues we don't agree on are a little bit more tricky. I am sure you will agree to that.

 

[Unfettered]

It is easy to deal with issues we agree on. The issues we don't agree on are a little bit more tricky. I am sure you will agree to that.

Oh, certainly. And while we have a moment where we do agree, I'd offer that, ultimately, it is the basement-level civilization-foundation things that we must always work to agree upon. No matter how difficult it may be to get there. We must do the work; that is the price of civilization.

 

[fantome profane]

Oh, certainly. And while we have a moment where we do agree, I'd offer that, ultimately, it is the basement-level civilization-foundation things that we must always work to agree upon. No matter how difficult it may be to get there. We must do the work; that is the price of civilization.

And what are those "basement-level civilization-foundation things" (blcft)?



(I ain't agreein to nutin witoot reedin the fineprint)

 

[Unfettered]

(I ain't agreein to nutin witoot reedin the fineprint)

LOL, right. And you shouldn't!

And what are those "basement-level civilization-foundation things" (blcft)?

That's the beauty of it. I can't tell you what they are. I can tell you what I believe they are, and why we should unite on that foundation (assuming you and I are already disposed to unite and create civilization). I can assert what they are strongly, even. In fact, if the founding of this nation (the US) would be a predictor of the formative process of our would-be civilization, the discussion would not be a cozy hand-holding session, but would be highly inflamed at times—blood-boiling inflamed. But until you and I do whatever back-and-forth is required to establish accord (civilization) or not (no civilization; continuation of law of the jungle) on what the foundation principles are, the question, for our civilization, cannot be answered.

In the United States, the civilization-foundation things are codified in the Organic Laws, as found here in the US code: https://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim

My observation is that US citizens, as a body, no longer agree on the civilization-founding things. We are in trouble. We all want to claim the nation's founding principles as the foundation of our individual civic assertions, but there is neither anymore a common (critical mass) interpretation of those principles, or a common understanding of how to apply them. Some want to abandon many of them outright, asserting that they are outdated principles from a bygone era. Many are utterly ignorant in regards to them, desiring to replace them with a foundation based on the shifting sands of exigency.

This thread, in my mind, is an example of that observation, and of the process. We're not discussing fluff here. We are discussing rights, the exercising (or suppression) of which has life-altering ramifications for the individuals involved, and existential ramifications for our society. Not saying this discussion will determine society's fate, but that discussions just like this, on a variety of foundation-level issues, collectively will.

 

[Friend of Mara]

They do exist "in the jungle"—because we are human beings and not simple animals. Of course, until they are recognized and the law of the jungle replaced, by accord, with the law of man, no warranty is offered that they will be enjoyed.
I understand the thought, but we can't have it both ways. If man created them, they are not rights, but privileges.
I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. Peoples in practically every society and time have created slaves of other human beings. The laws sanctioning the practice were made by those who had the freedom to make them, the will to make them, saw fit to make them, and the power to enforce them. That is your recipe above for "laws and rights." If so, then slaves have always been made in accordance with acceptable standards of laws and rights. Every element you listed was present in their shaping. And "hope" is all we have to throw at the question of whether or not we will "shape our laws and our rights" in ways that either "cause great harm" or result in "some good"? God help us if that is the standard! Even if the idea of "unalienable rights" were false, only fools would reject it in favor of a system where the standard of laws and rights ultimately rests on "hope" that we won't harm people with what we create or shape.

Yes. Slavery was legal. They believed it was their "right" to own slaves. We had a whole war about it in this country if you recall. There is no objective truth or morality behind our laws or the rights that we enjoy. Inalienable rights are life, liberty and the purist of happiness as defined by our founding fathers. These are thing things recognized by other countries. These are based off of a philosopher called John Locke. And even then they changed the original quote of allegedly "inalienable rights" because it didn't fit their political agenda and how they were going to make their laws and rights! The original quote was "life, liberty and property". But they made the intentional decision to include "pursuit of happiness instead."
All vague terms that are limited and alienated in millions of people every day. None of our "rights" that we enjoy today in law are actually based off of them.

You are living in a dream land if you think we haven't made our laws. If you think our laws aren't privileges. If you think our laws are actually fair and just then you are living under a rock. Society is a construct of man. Through and through. I can only hope that we as a society do better. But society struggles against the evil nature of those in power every single day. So it is less hope and an actual struggle being fought constantly.

So when you say the idea of unalienable rights are false and we are rejecting I don't know what you are saying. I'm saying we made up unalienable rights. I'm saying everything we have based our laws on we have ultimately created at some point in human history. It isn't derived from the ether. Where have you assumed rights have come from? God?

I don't know how the parents found out; you didn't detail that. But I agree that, now that the parents are aware on at least a rudimentary level, assuming they believe it is an issue that warrants additional investigation or action, they should listen carefully to their child and take into consideration everything that the child might tell them about it, and about any other issues that might be related or bear on the primary issue.
No, and I have never suggested they should be. Nor have I commented at all on who the child should or should not talk to. All my comments have been offered within your scenario in which the child is not telling the parents.
I agree. I also believe that parents have the right to assess in advance what may constitute "danger" for their child (drug use, for example), and have the right to ask those whom they have hired to represent them (the parents) in the care of their child to notify them (the parents) should any of those scenarios manifest in the life of the child. In either of these situations, a teacher would relay to parents whatever thing was believed by either the teacher, the parents, or both, to place the child in danger of some kind.

So in this second scenario where the kid is not seemingly in harm or danger but has decided on their own that they are not comfortable having that conversation yet with their parents you agree that the school should NOT notify the parents. Correct?

 

[Unfettered]

There is no objective truth or morality behind our laws or the rights that we enjoy. Inalienable rights are life, liberty and the purist of happiness as defined by our founding fathers. These are thing things recognized by other countries. These are based off of a philosopher called John Locke. And even then they changed the original quote of allegedly "inalienable rights" because it didn't fit their political agenda and how they were going to make their laws and rights! The original quote was "life, liberty and property". But they made the intentional decision to include "pursuit of happiness instead."
All vague terms that are limited and alienated in millions of people every day. None of our "rights" that we enjoy today in law are actually based off of them.

If neither our rights or laws are founded upon any objective truth, upon what are they founded? If you say that they are founded upon the ideas of other persons or nations, then upon what were their ideas founded? There has to be something—objective or subjective—upon which these things are originally founded. What is it?

You are living in a dream land if you think we haven't made our laws.

When did I ever say we didn't make our laws?

If you think our laws aren't privileges.

I don't know what that means. Did you mean to say "rights" instead of "laws"?

If you think our laws are actually fair and just then you are living under a rock.

I know that many of our laws are unjust. Does that mean I'm not living under a rock?

Society is a construct of man. Through and through.

Agreed.

I can only hope that we as a society do better.

Agreed.

But society struggles against the evil nature of those in power every single day. So it is less hope and an actual struggle being fought constantly.

Also agreed, though I do not ultimately blame those in office; the People are sovereign, not their representatives. As our primal law declares, we'll abolish the evil forms of government we allow to get above us when we judge the overall burden to have reached the breaking point. The burden of the evil of slavery reached that point and we abolished it. Other evils we have placed upon ourselves have likewise been abolished. So the system does work. It seems greatly threatened at this time, however.

So when you say the idea of unalienable rights are false and we are rejecting I don't know what you are saying.

I don't know what you're referring to. I haven't said that the idea of unalienable rights is false.

I'm saying we made up unalienable rights. I'm saying everything we have based our laws on we have ultimately created at some point in human history. It isn't derived from the ether. Where have you assumed rights have come from? God?

I would answer…that if you are asking about the source of the rights, I think you've missed the point. Our founders asserted that it was self-evident that we are endowed with the unalienable rights they listed (they also said their list was not exhaustive). What that means is…if we desire to have a free, civilized society where the law of the jungle is replaced with the law of man, and if we hope at all to have that law be just and equitable and effective to create and maintain civilization, then it is self-evident that each of us has certain rights that are inviolate by any external human force, barring one voluntary exposes his rights to external infringement by violating the rights of another. In other words, our rights ARE real and they ARE unalienable, else there cannot be civilization. If we all don't have these rights by default, then our lives, liberty, etc, may be taken with impunity by anyone at any time. IE, the law of the jungle. And if only a faction of the citizenry is denied the unalienable rights via legislation (as with slavery), then the persons belonging to that faction are subject to the law of the jungle while others enjoy the law of man. Such situations are, of course, the most despicable of all, because a nation whose law is so composed is guilty of the grossest hypocrisy.

We could get into the founders' assertions about the source of the rights ("their Creator"), but I think that's a huge distraction and—honestly—entirely unnecessary. The founders could have omitted entirely any reference to their source, and the remaining assertions of the Declaration would still have been sufficient for the establishment of a free society. I know that Christians might not like to hear me say that (I'm Christian; go figure), but if you ask me, Christians' drumbeat about the source of our rights is a distraction from the mind-bogglingly insightful "self-evidence" clause Jefferson wrote immediately before he invoked the "Creator."

So there you go. There's my answer. Are our unalienable rights real? Absolutely. How do we know? It is self-evident: if they aren't real, or if we don't agree that they are and don't build our laws upon the truth that they are, we cannot enjoy civilization—someone will lose, and we'll all eventually lose. You want civilization? Then unalienable rights exist…and all people have them…and government's job is to protect them from infringement. That's both the price of civilization, and the path to it. And gratefully, that's our law. Foundationally, anyway. Our civil discourse, expectations, practice and laws may fall far, far short of our founding.

So in this second scenario where the kid is not seemingly in harm or danger but has decided on their own that they are not comfortable having that conversation yet with their parents you agree that the school should NOT notify the parents. Correct?

I'm sorry, but I can't answer that question. There are variables yet unaccounted for. Let's try this...

I've tried to explain my position various ways as we've gone through our discussion, and I have appreciated your willingness to engage. Others would have bailed long ago, or resorted to personal attacks on a level I just won't endure. I don't expect that you and I will agree, though I have remained open to the possibility that we might actually land on the same space if we just keep drilling. And I'm willing to go on and on and on, honestly; whatever it takes.

But I do believe that we each have offered enough to the question. I hope you can sense that I am not proceeding from a place where the child is relegated in some way. That just could not be further from the truth. You don't know me. I don't know you. All we have here are each other's words, and we have each had to struggle and stretch to even understand those from time to time. I do say that if you knew my own history and that of my family you would have cause to believe it if I said (this is going to be superlative, I know...but I'm invoking it now because I mean to drive the point home with appropriate force) that there is no father who cares more for the well-being of every child on earth than me. My wife and I have eleven children. They are each unique and precious, and we have made life-altering sacrifices for their well-being in the face of threats and danger. We know the pain of child crisis. We know that post-crisis, you are never the same. That there is always a phantom in the background of your soul, haunting you and tempting to you worry that you will face a crisis again because of things beyond your control. And there is so much beyond your control.

With that background, short though it may be on specifics, I will summarize again what I have attempted to say here in these many posts.

If the question is about ANY piece of information related to a child that the parents need in order to properly care for the child, parents have a right to that information because it is their obligation to care for the child. It does not matter what the information is. It does not matter who holds the information. They cannot hope to care for the child properly without all such information. That they have a right to the information does not mean that they have a right to obtain it from others through infringing on the rights of others.

We can create scenario after scenario to probe what should or should happen here or there, and whether or not laws are needed, or should be created, to compel this thing or that person, but the foundational truth spoken in those few sentences above remains constant. If you disagree with that simple idea, then we do not, and will not agree. I cannot yield on it because my conscience compels me that I cannot—for the sake and safety and well-being of the children. It is self-evident that parents have the right I have described.

God bless.

 

[Friend of Mara]

If neither our rights or laws are founded upon any objective truth, upon what are they founded? If you say that they are founded upon the ideas of other persons or nations, then upon what were their ideas founded? There has to be something—objective or subjective—upon which these things are originally founded. What is it?

When did I ever say we didn't make our laws?

I don't know what that means. Did you mean to say "rights" instead of "laws"?

I know that many of our laws are unjust. Does that mean I'm not living under a rock?

Agreed.

Agreed.

Also agreed, though I do not ultimately blame those in office; the People are sovereign, not their representatives. As our primal law declares, we'll abolish the evil forms of government we allow to get above us when we judge the overall burden to have reached the breaking point. The burden of the evil of slavery reached that point and we abolished it. Other evils we have placed upon ourselves have likewise been abolished. So the system does work. It seems greatly threatened at this time, however.

I don't know what you're referring to. I haven't said that the idea of unalienable rights is false.

I would answer…that if you are asking about the source of the rights, I think you've missed the point. Our founders asserted that it was self-evident that we are endowed with the unalienable rights they listed (they also said their list was not exhaustive). What that means is…if we desire to have a free, civilized society where the law of the jungle is replaced with the law of man, and if we hope at all to have that law be just and equitable and effective to create and maintain civilization, then it is self-evident that each of us has certain rights that are inviolate by any external human force, barring one voluntary exposes his rights to external infringement by violating the rights of another. In other words, our rights ARE real and they ARE unalienable, else there cannot be civilization. If you and I don't have these rights, then our lives, liberty, etc, may be infringed upon by anyone at any time without lawful recourse of any kind. IE, the law of the jungle.

We could get into the founders' assertions about the source of the rights, but I think that's a huge distraction and—honestly—entirely unnecessary. The founders could have omitted entirely any reference to their source, and the remaining assertions of the Declaration would still have been sufficient for the establishment of a free society. I know that Christians might not like to hear me say that (I'm Christian; go figure), but if you ask me, Christians' drumbeat about the source of our rights is a distraction from the mind-bogglingly insightful "self-evidence" clause Jefferson wrote immediately before he invoked the "Creator."

So there you go. There's my answer. Are our unalienable rights real? Absolutely. How do we know? It is self-evident: if they aren't real, or if we don't agree that they are and don't build our laws upon the truth that they are, we cannot enjoy civilization—someone will lose, and we'll all eventually lose. You want civilization? Unalienable rights exist and all people have them and government's job is to protect them from infringement. That's the price of civilization. That's our law. And lo and behold if history hasn't confirmed this truth again and again and again.

Since we are getting off track again and I would like to get back to the meat and potatoes of this thread I will try to shorten my conclusion on this matter here. Rights are granted by laws. Your philosophical understanding of how rights are derived is one of many possible philosophical interpretations of the concept of morals and the theory of humanity. I assure you society existed well before John Locke and in different forms. But functionally when we discuss rights for purposes of laws and ethics they are simply laws that we have created. Moral philosophers have dwelled on this since Socrates.

I'm sorry, but I can't answer that question. There are variables yet unaccounted for. Let's try this...

I've tried to explain my position various ways as we've gone through our discussion, and I have appreciated your willingness to engage. Others would have bailed long ago, or resorted to personal attacks on a level I just won't endure. I don't expect that you and I will agree, though I have remained open to the possibility that we might actually land on the same space if we just keep drilling. And I'm willing to go on and on and on, honestly; whatever it takes.

But I do believe that we each have offered enough to the question. I hope you can sense that I am not proceeding from a place where the child is relegated in some way. That just could not be further from the truth. You don't know me. I don't know you. All we have here are each other's words, and we have each had to struggle and stretch to even understand those from time to time. I do say that if you knew my own history and that of my family you would have cause to believe it if I said that—this is going to be superlative, I know...but I'm invoking it now because I mean it—that there is no father who cares more for the well-being of every child on earth than me. My wife and I have eleven children. They are each unique and precious, and we have made life-altering sacrifices for their well-being in the face of threats and danger. We know the pain of child crisis. We know that post-crisis, you are never the same. That there is always a phantom in the background of your soul, tempting to you worry that you will face a crisis again because of things beyond your control. And there is so much beyond your control.

With that background, short though it may be on specifics, I will summarize again what I have attempted to say here in these many posts.

If the question is about ANY piece of information related to a child that the parents need in order to properly care for the child, parents have a right to that information because it is their obligation to care for the child. It does not matter what the information is. It does not matter who holds the information. They cannot hope to care for the child properly without all such information. That they have a right to the information does not mean that they have a right to obtain it from others through infringing on the rights of others.

We can create scenario after scenario to probe what should or should happen here or there, and whether or not laws are needed, or should be created, to compel this thing or that, but the foundational truth spoken in those few sentences above remains constant. If you disagree with that simple idea, then we do not, and will not agree. I cannot yield on it because my conscience compels me that I cannot—for the sake and safety and well-being of the children.

God bless.

The bolded italicized part is the core of my point. If we can agree on that I think we can agree. I'm not saying that a parent shouldn't ever know a child is trans. I'm just saying that the conversation should happen between child and parent. Because each relationship will be different and mandated action of any kind that interferes with that relationship (outside of suspect of abuse of course) is likely bad. I may or may not agree with someone prompting the conversation with the parent if it comes up in conversation. But I am against the public school sector having a mandated policy that says we have no wiggle room and the child doesn't get to have privacy in this matter.

 

[Unfettered]

Since we are getting off track again and I would like to get back to the meat and potatoes of this thread I will try to shorten my conclusion on this matter here. Rights are granted by laws. Your philosophical understanding of how rights are derived is one of many possible philosophical interpretations of the concept of morals and the theory of humanity. I assure you society existed well before John Locke and in different forms. But functionally when we discuss rights for purposes of laws and ethics they are simply laws that we have created. Moral philosophers have dwelled on this since Socrates.

We've each said our piece on this. I think we can leave it now.

The bolded italicized part is the core of my point. If we can agree on that I think we can agree.

We'll see, I guess.

I'm not saying that a parent shouldn't ever know a child is trans. I'm just saying that the conversation should happen between child and parent. Because each relationship will be different and mandated action of any kind that interferes with that relationship (outside of suspect of abuse of course) is likely bad. I may or may not agree with someone prompting the conversation with the parent if it comes up in conversation. But I am against the public school sector having a mandated policy that says we have no wiggle room and the child doesn't get to have privacy in this matter.

Disclosure:

Because our children are not part of the public school system beyond the fact that monies that are earmarked in our family budget for our children's education are being taken by the state to fund its indoctrination centers (public schools), I am unaffected by legislation either way. IE, I have no dog in the fight, even though money is being taken from me against my will to sponsor a dog in the fight.

And now the respond to your post:

Because public school does constitute a de facto affront to the right of the citizenry—either in the compulsory placement of an agent of the state (public school teachers) between parents and children, or in the funding of that act—a law compelling those agents to disclose to parents all information related to their own children would constitute a partial restoration of citizens' rights. So I could not, in good conscience, oppose such legislation. But I am not calling for such legislation. I advocate, instead, for government to return to its proper place of non-involvement in the education of the children of its citizenry. It is self-evident that government has no right to place state agents between parents and children as is done with the public school system.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

So, it boils down to what constitutes harmful behaviour and who, ultimately, decides.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I did.

It doesn't seem to mean what you say it does.

"Trans-species psychology is the field of psychology that states that humans and nonhuman animals share commonalities in cognition (thinking) and emotions (feelings). It was established by Gay A. Bradshaw, American ecologist and psychologist."

Trans-species psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"What is a trans-species perspective?​

The general term trans-species perspective derives from and encompasses Trans-Species Psychology, a new paradigm of science, knowledge, and culture established by psychologist/ecologist Gay Bradshaw. Bradshaw is currently the Executive Director of The Kerulos Center, a non-profit organization that implements trans-species psychology through various programs of service and education. As she defines it:

“Trans re-embeds humans within the larger matrix of the animal kingdom by erasing the ‘and’ between humans and animals that has been used to demarcate and reinforce the false notion that humans are substantively different cognitively and emotionally from other species.” (Animal Visions, September 17, 2010)"

A Trans-Species Perspective on Nature « On the Human

nationalhumanitiescenter.org

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.
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?

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.


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?


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.

 

[Unfettered]

I did.

It doesn't seem to mean what you say it does.

"Trans-species psychology is the field of psychology that states that humans and nonhuman animals share commonalities in cognition (thinking) and emotions (feelings). It was established by Gay A. Bradshaw, American ecologist and psychologist."

Trans-species psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"What is a trans-species perspective?​

The general term trans-species perspective derives from and encompasses Trans-Species Psychology, a new paradigm of science, knowledge, and culture established by psychologist/ecologist Gay Bradshaw. Bradshaw is currently the Executive Director of The Kerulos Center, a non-profit organization that implements trans-species psychology through various programs of service and education. As she defines it:

A Trans-Species Perspective on Nature « On the Human

nationalhumanitiescenter.org

I was referring to this kind of transspecies:

"Otherkins – the ‘trans species’ people who don’t identify as human"

"We have witnessed, in the last half a century, an explosion of politics grounded on new identities, and on their overcoming.

"People have been experimenting with and transgressing the limits of what it means to be a woman, of what it means to have a gender, a sex, or a sexual orientation."

"Across the western world, individuals and collectives are defying our identity as organic beings, in contrast with mechanical ones, and exploring cyborgism. Social movements of trans and disabled people started questioning what it means exactly to be an able body.

"The neuro-diverse and BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder – people who would prefer to be ‘disabled’) have followed in the same footsteps.

"I thought it would be worth exploring the worlds of those who clash with one central dichotomy: humanity and non-human animality."

Otherkins - the 'trans species' people who don't identify as human

Why identify as human when you could identify as a fairy?

metro.co.uk

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was referring to this kind of transspecies:

"Otherkins – the ‘trans species’ people who don’t identify as human"

"We have witnessed, in the last half a century, an explosion of politics grounded on new identities, and on their overcoming.

"People have been experimenting with and transgressing the limits of what it means to be a woman, of what it means to have a gender, a sex, or a sexual orientation."

"Across the western world, individuals and collectives are defying our identity as organic beings, in contrast with mechanical ones, and exploring cyborgism. Social movements of trans and disabled people started questioning what it means exactly to be an able body.

"The neuro-diverse and BIID (Body Integrity Identity Disorder – people who would prefer to be ‘disabled’) have followed in the same footsteps.

"I thought it would be worth exploring the worlds of those who clash with one central dichotomy: humanity and non-human animality."

Otherkins - the 'trans species' people who don't identify as human

Why identify as human when you could identify as a fairy?

metro.co.uk

So, they're supposedly called "otherkins."

And that's according to a Twitter account called "Otherkin FAQ" from a dubious source called "Metro," with the slogan "News ... but not as you know it." The page you referred me to looks like a tabloid rag.

Do you have another source?

 

[Friend of Mara]

We've each said our piece on this. I think we can leave it now.


We'll see, I guess.

Disclosure:

Because my children are not part of the public school system beyond the fact that monies that earmarked for my children's education are being taken by the state to fund its indoctrination centers (public schools), I am unaffected by legislation either way. IE, I have no dog in the fight, even though money is being taken from me against my will to sponsor a dog in the fight.

And now the respond to your post:

Because public school does constitute a de facto affront to the right of the citizenry—either in the compulsory placement of an agent of the state (public school teachers) between parents and children, or in the funding of that act—a law compelling those agents to disclose to parents all information related to their own children would constitute a partial restoration of citizens' rights. So I could not, in good conscience, oppose such legislation. But I am not calling for such legislation. I advocate, instead, for government to return to its proper place of non-involvement in the education of the children of its citizenry. It is self-evident that government has no right to place state agents between parents and children as is done with the public school system.

Sure. I think this is the end of a very long road and this is where we part ways in this discussion. I shall see you in further threads and hope to see you continue to argue in good faith.

 

[Friend of Mara]

So, it boils down to what constitutes harmful behaviour and who, ultimately, decides.

At the end of the day that was never in question was it? Though if we are allowing pronouns to be used in classrooms it will already be presumed that simply being gender non-conforming isn't harmful behavior. Otherwise consistently you would have to demand that no one else uses pronouns that don't match assigned sex at birth either in a classroom even if your own child did not. But I might be getting ahead of myself in what you were going to argue.

 

[Unfettered]

So, they're supposedly called "otherkins."

And that's according to a Twitter account called "Otherkin FAQ" from a dubious source called "Metro," with the slogan "News ... but not as you know it." The page you referred me to looks like a tabloid rag.

Do you have another source?

LOL, If you don't think transspecies is a thing, run with that. I'm not going to hold your hand here.

 

[Unfettered]

Sure. I think this is the end of a very long road and this is where we part ways in this discussion. I shall see you in further threads and hope to see you continue to argue in good faith.

Likewise. God bless!

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL, If you don't think transspecies is a thing, run with that. I'm going to hold your hand here.

Your claim and your source are dubious.

I think trans species is definitely a "thing." But not the thing you seem to think it is, as I already pointed out to you. It doesn't mean "people who don't identify as human." Sorry.