The costs of trans visibility

Nobody has said a teacher CAN"T tell the parents, so your sisters point is entirely irrelevant. Hopefully in the overwhelming majority of cases the teacher and the parents are both part of a supportive environment for the students. The debate is about the cases when a trans student confides in a teacher and finally feels safe enough to do so, expressing worries about transphobic parents and toxic home life, in those cases the politician is stepping into the delicate teacher-student relationship and forcing a legal requirement to out the student to their parents. This is why it is so morally wrong, because of the rare extremes, not because the general idea of involving parents isn't in general great practice. I'd also hope that teachers would generally support their students in helping them come out on their own to their parents when they felt safe to do so. But that won't always be the case.

Maybe one day you will express some concern for the actual party penalized by the law.

Wait, do you believe puberty blockers , or sex-changing surgery, were free for all kids of any age before these "new laws", 20 years ago? Really?

I don't unless they can also vote, marry, get a tatoo, buy and sell property, be drafted in war if a draft happens, be on jury duty if applicable, drink alcohol, smoke or do legal drugs if applicable and so on.

I really don't think the age of consent to be able to access the pill without parental supervision should be lower than the general age of consent society decided for being "an adult"

The debates are also about the cases where it's actually the teachers pushing lesbians/gay kids to explore the possibility they might actually be trans, but of course your side denies this ever happens

What population of teachers would ne doing this? It seems unlikely that a straight teacher would somehow feel so strongly that lesbian/gay kids are really trans that they would push that idea to kids. I doubt that many straight teachers even think about that at all. A lesbian or gay teacher would know the distinction between l/g and trans, since they themselves are lesbian/gay but havent decided they are really trans.

So that leaves transgender teachers as a possibility. But first, the percentage of people overall who are transgender is tiny, and a miniscule percentage of those are teachers. And again, being transgender they would also know the difference between being attracted to a person of the same sex versus having a gender incongruence between ones gender identity and physical body.

That sounds like more of a right wing strawman than something that actually happens regularly in real life.

Seems speculative. If some kid tells their teacher they think they're the opposite sex/"gender assigned at birth" do you really think the teacher is going to be like "I think you're actually gay"?

So until the age of 18 do you view the children as property of the parents?

The NEA is the biggest labour union in the USA. It has like 3m members. It shapes teachers policies, guidelines, and priorities.

They have a guide called "school in transition" about how teachers should deal with trans ness in school.

Aside from the typical content you would expect from a far left association (like the denial of the gender binary) , which is already so controversial that it shouldn't form the basis of any educational policy in a country where we do not want schools to be partisan I hope (IE any value that isn't fully shared by democrats and republicans shouldn't have a place in public schools, any take ok any politically hot topic which among the adult population is divided across parties shouldnt have a place in public schools), they have several "gems" that go beyond what even the left normally claims about trans-ness.

For example they claim kids 2 to 4 years old already show signs of being trans.

That is so absurd, so obscene, so terrifying that it is not about "strawmanning": they are telling you explicitly.

They repeatedly assert that parents have to be kept in the dark if they don't agree with the teachers assessment.

They even say parents shouldn't be informed if a boy who thinks he is a girl is sleeping with the girls in overnight school trips.

They of course deny biology and science by claiming biological males don't have any advantage in sports, even after puberty (again, a very radical extremist take of the left).

So given the largest body representing teachers takes a side on this political conversation, and takes the most possible, radical one on the left at that, it is not strawmanning to believe that their intentions are extremely nefarious, as everyone stemming from the radical left usually is, for people on the center or the right.

So, when discussing their possible behavior, it's not inappropriate to always think the worst as the starting, h0 hypothesis, on any matter related with radical left takes (including that of trans ness).

Which means that not only it wouldn't surprise anyone, but it's rather expected than heterosexual teachers who share the NEA positions will take any sign of gender stereotype non conforming behaviour as a possible sign of trans ness even in young kid.

The boy likes dolls? He might be trans. When a perhaps weak, not very well accepted at home gay kid gets focused upon by teachers, covered in praise for his ability to "behave as he really feels", to "express his gender" and what not, when he basically gets rewarded for behaving in a way his radical leftist teachers consider possibly trans, what do you think will happen?

You can't envision many such kids moving toward "feeling trans" rather than just "I might be gay", when the whole system at school is set up to treat them better if they are trans?

Ofc many of these will just stay gay, but do you really think it's strawmanning to think the radical left operates something akin to conversion therapy of gay people into trans, when among the very young the percentage of self defined trans people is at absurd, never-before-in history levels?

And no it can't be about "well they were persecuted before, now they come out", the percentages are insane, and much higher among girls than boys, proving it must be societal pressure at school, given that girls feel that kind of pressures a lot more than boys.

No country in history ever registered a tenth of those percentages before, no one even suggested it was possible than anything other than an extremely rare minority of people were trans (talking at most 1 in 1000).

But no we must accept that it's all "truth revealed", by people with a completely antiscientifical worldview based on the most heinous of the ideologies (radical leftists), and that there is no social contagion at school and pressure to identify gay kids as trans as much as possible.

Teachers can't even get kids to read The Great Gatsby, the idea that they're going to hypnotize their students into becoming LGBT is one of the dumbest ideas the bigots have ever come up with.

Seems like that is an extremely common thing that we really need to worry about. I mean, I happen to be straight, but if someone had talked to me about being gay or trans or whatever, who knows what I'd have done? I mean, kids aren't just impressionable, but are more like playdough that can be molded into a different gender or sexual orientation by the mere mention of it by a teacher!!!

I also support being panicked about sharks attacking people in Iowa. Sharks are scary and bad and you simply cannot be too careful!

No because they can't damage them randomly and aren't allowed to do so for example.

But in matters regarding consent, society has to be consistent in what it does.

It is unclear if 18 is the right numbers it might be higher or lower, but it's completely absurd to try to claim that at age x you aren't mature enough to be able to handle beer, but are mature enough to be able to decide about contraceptive methods with significant side effects and problematic bias.

Just an example: taking the pill will usually reduce the recourse to condoms in occasional sex. That means increasing exposure to STD. Ever thought about that?

You need to be mature enough to be on the pill because you want to have unprotected sex with your regular partner, which feels better for both, but still be using condoms with occasional partners, to avoid STD.

How can a society believe the above considerations can be properly taken by someone, society itself claims is not mature enough to drink beer?

Talking a straight person to be gay isn't gonna work because you won't feel the sexual attraction for same sex people if you aren't gay.

While a gay kid can be talked into being trans, or non binary, especially when the definition is so wide and based mostly if not at all on subjective feelings.

If a 7y old is told that "doing thing typically associated with the other sex is a strong sign of trans ness", he will believe that.

He might not go all the way and get puberty blockers later on, but might get called with an opposite sex new name for a while, and under the teachers guidelines, if they are allowed to, without telling parents

Because they aren't "hypnotized" to become LGB.

They are LGB and they get convinced they are actually T.

The addition of the T to the same list itself was a monstrous, disastrous choice. T has nothing to do with LGB. T is a completely orthogonal topic.

LGB is about who you feel sexually attracted to.

T is about your relationship with the self, with your body.

If being T is rewarded socially, and you can be a T just by claiming you are, more LGB will claim they are T

Canadian pediatric society and Albertan medical association - ie the people that actually know not right wing polititians - both speak out against the new Alberta anti-trans laws: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/m...

None of this is new for the non-Canadians, this is playing out in many right wing US states. Just so tragic to see this filth here in Canada too.

I know you revealed that you don't live in the US but you certainly have some misconceptions about our age of majority. For example, it is not illegal to consume alcohol in your home below the age of 21, it's only illegal to purchase. 16 year olds can obtain birth control and have abortions wo parental consent. Teenage Minors can also choose/have input which divorced to live with. The drinking age in our country only went to 21 because the feds withheld federal highway funds to the non complying states.

My point being that you seem to think we deny minors all autonomy and agency and should continue with a bright line age but that is not true.

Ye let's ask the physicians who should be medicalized, what could go wrong

Thanks uke for that article, the verbatim cites from the people interviewed depict everything I have been talking about in this thread in the best possible way.

Physicians screaming at the idea that they can't decide everything by themselves even if it's about public money and parental rights, absurd claims about normal natural puberty being "irreversible damage" to a minor that thinks he is of the other sex and so on.

The use of made up words and concepts following a very defined script by radical leftists.

Everything is there

If not actual pediatric associations, who precisely should we turn to for the best medical advice affecting children? Wannabe MAGA-lite Canadian politicians?

Other than that makes no sense at all in any way at all, I can see your point.

When purported a-partisan experts get captured by one-sided political ideology you indeed have a problem if you trusted them as sources of technical truth on topics before.

How to deal with that problem is a good question.

My personal take is that you still accept the counsel of experts, but only after filtering away all radicalized experts.

So in your example you only listen to pediatricians with a proven history of not being leftists in that case.

Which fortunately currently still means you can ask normal pediatricians in civilized countries where the radical left didn't capture academia and scientifical institutions, so Japan for example.

Or you read the state of science before the ideological capturing happened and trust that to be closer to the truth than whatever made up bunch of words and definitions the left has come about currently.

I don't understand why everyone gets the idea that you shouldn't ask experts who take big tobacco money on their opinion about tobacco damage, but some still think it's reasonable to ask experts who earn their livelihood "caring for transgender youth" about how much care is proper to give to transgender youth.

I agree that you don't understand

You don't? They pretty much are, just having as much freedom as the parents decide to give them. Not much different than slavery.

I have lived in the US my entire life and have never heard of this being the case. Quick googling says it is definitely not true in California, the largest and probably most liberal state.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov...

I also don't think your other examples prove your claim. How do minors have 'autonomy' if they have to get parental permission for something? That is the opposite of autonomy.