The costs of trans visibility

I mean, since you don't accept the reality of present-day transgender people, it's going to be very hard to teach you that they existed in the past.

I'm hoping you just haven't thought this through, because it's a pretty messed up way to look at things.

My student Johnny tells me that they are gay or trans, but please don't tell their parents because they'll be thrown out of the house. You're saying that if I decide that to protect the child, I don't tell the parents without the child's permission, I shouldn't be around children?? When you were simply talking law/policy, that made some sense to me even if I didn't agree, but this sounds like a moral judgement I'm really not understanding.

The thing is, this isn't a black-and-white principled position, as is shown here:

Now, I'm not saying those are the same thing, but the point is there are some things you agree shouldn't be reported back to the parents, we're just disagreeing where the line is. For example, what if Johnny isn't being abused, but tells his teacher he will be beaten if they learn he's homosexual - does the teacher have to tell his parents?

I'm just having a lot of trouble with the calculation behind this. Like I said before - who is this helping? Certainly not the child, and I don't think it's really helping the parent either, since the parent won't gain any new information, the child just won't tell the teacher.

This seems like a pretty far leap from a law that says schools can't require teachers to inform the parents of something the child has told them in confidence. And I'm not really clear on what this potential law is all about. The school is engaging in an inquisition to confirm what the child is telling them, or have I missed the point? If so, what would be the point of such a law?

I'm wondering if a point of misunderstanding might be how this should work in reality. This shouldn't be about teachers never sharing the info with parents. I've read about situations like this where the teacher was able to work through the concerns with the student over time, and get things to a point where the student was able to share with their parents. Sometimes students think it will be a problem at home when in fact they had no reason to worry, and involving a teacher helped them come out to their parents when they otherwise wouldn't have. Or there truly was a lack of understanding at home, but the teacher was able to help the student bridge that gap. Rules forcing teachers to inform regardless of circumstances takes away all flexibility, and will simply mean the child is forced to keep it to themselves, which doesn't seem especially helpful.

What in the **** are you talking about? This is so ridiculous I hardly know how to respond. We're talking about a child telling the teacher something in confidence, and you're twisting it into what, a way such a law would allow a teacher to abuse a child and have it kept secret because...reasons? Please, enlighten me as to how the California law we're discussing would increase the "clear and present danger" of pedophilia by teachers.

Bobo, the inherent problem with this is the teacher is not at home, doesn't understand the situation, and making a judgement call. I'm sure there are good intentions on the teacher's part - but it is wrong to assume malice in parenting.

There's a whole litany of reasons why a child named Bob may be asking their classmates to call them Lucy and would also be uncomfortable disclosing to their parents who would otherwise be very open and supportive of the transition.

Just think of how many girls at your school change in the bathroom into a different outfit that their parents wouldn't approve of. If her parents call you and ask if she's ever worn mini skirts in class are you now going to cover for her and lie for them so they don't get in trouble?

What about Joe, who's parents don't want him playing football because they think it's too dangerous. Joe still wants to play and asks the school to let him play secretly without their knowledge. Is that also ok for the school to do?

Don't you see the optics here. The government knows better and the parents can't be trusted to responsibly and lovingly raise their own children because there's a non-zero chance they will reject the transition?

Where do you draw the line? Do we use whiteout wherever Lucy wrote her name and write Bob over it before sending it back home for parents to see? Do we dead name Lucy as Bob and use pronouns Lucy doesn't use on any discussions with parents or documents they will see?

there are many reasons to oppose such kind of policies and laws of non-disclosure and none of them have anything to do with being trans

You know perfectly well.

I don't. I need you to explain it clearly and succinctly. Like im an 11 year old who needs this knowledge to evade abuse

"Government knows better" is exactly what the California law appears to be combating. When a school, or school district, has a policy that parents must always be told, no matter what, they are tying the hands of their administrators, teachers, and other staff who actually know the kids. The law isn't saying the parents shouldn't be informed, it's simply keeping in place the same freedoms educators have always had to make decisions based on their knowledge of the situations and their professional skills.

No, I sincerely don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. That's why I asked.

I find it crazy that trans people somehow end up as being the ultimate end boss in the culture wars. For example, Musk recently declared he is moving spacex HQ from california to tesla. One can imagine a million business reasons for or against this, but what is the actual reason? Trans people. Well, the new law trying to protect trans kids in school from mandatory outing to their transphobic parents. You can like that law or hate that law, but it is insane to be moving the headquarters of a big business for these kinds of reasons.

When republicans talk about wokism run amok and all that, it keeps seeming that trans issues end up being the best/worst archetype example of this. Take republican narratives about the left swinging way to the left and going crazy - remove trans issues from that and the list becomes pretty ****ing narrow.

I'm no fan of Musk, but there is no way that law is having any significant impact on his decision to move a company. He will move it if he thinks it's good for other reasons, mostly money related, but give whatever reason he thinks is more likely to stir up more culture war, because he's a douche bag.

Democrats are implicitly pro trans because they aren't actively trying to kill them all .. you ****ing moron.

I'm confused what you are responding to in his post

The Musk move to Texas is about subsidy and taxes. Hes milked California for every last drop of subsidy he could, now its time to move to the new grift. He did this to New York as well.

Musk milked the libs for everything he could and now hes doing the right wing grift because a few % on billions of dollars adds up real quick

The right wing has run out of people that they can bully in a socially acceptable way, it's as simple as that.

wow, bobo - this is clear reality distortion field stuff where you think deferring to parents is government involvement and keeping the actions of minors secret from parents is not

The law bans school districts from requiring reporting. It doesn't make it illegal to report, just gives individuals the power make a determination based on all the information.

I really can't even see how this could be controversial. Requiring someone to report potentially sensitive information seems like a blatant violation of freedom of speech. (Right to silence, anyone?)
Let alone the draconian nature of "reporting" marginalized individuals for potentially further marginalization

Pre trans issues, there was merely suspicion much of the left was captured by religious energy. Post trans, it’s undeniable.

Wokism is the worst type of religion: a religion which doesn’t acknowledge its beliefs as beliefs, leaving no tolerance for pluralism and with the entitlement to teach this stuff to children in public schools.

So you freely admit that this is a very serious freedom of speech issue

ironically, the lawsuit against this states that parents have a "divine mandate" to do whatever they want with their kids

it would be funny if it wasn't sad

The era of secularity is ending in the West.

That’s, uh, not how freedom of religion works

I’m beginning to think the party of freedom is a bit hypocritical

The cost? Everybody suffers

There's not much of a conversation to be had here if you're going to take a nuanced issue and simplify it all down to "deferring to parents" and "keeping the actions of minors secret", and based on that, calling my post "reality distortion stuff".

There's more than just parents involved here. Should there not be some consideration of the needs of the students? A 17 year old student is looking for some support, shares some private information with their teacher about their sexual orientation and asks them to keep it private because they'll be kicked out of the house (or worse) if their parents find out, why would we want policy that says that teacher now must tell the parents? If that isn't government involvement, I'm not sure what is, and I don't see how it's helpful here.

I'll go back to a something I've said I think twice now in this thread and have had no response to:

You're not going to be able to legislate away a child's ability to tell an adult other than one of their parents a secret that said adult won't share, so why should a teacher be precluded from being that adult? Auntie Jane or a coach they really trust or their best friend's parent can keep it between them, but their teacher can't? Who is this helping? Certainly not the child, and I don't think it's really helping the parent either, since the parent won't gain any new information, the child just won't tell the teacher.

no, this has nothing to do with that

the government has no evidence of parental malfeasance and therefore has no obligation to act as if that is the case

the word of a minor who has numerous genuine reasons to not want parental disclosure is not to be taken as gospel

this is a parental responsibility and you can't just exclude them from the process just because there's a non-zero chance they could be awful parents

students need written documentation of parental to watch movies in school (we weren't allowed to watch stargate in our classroom because one of my classmates had a parent who refused to consent to it), to go on field trips, to play sports, to join the band, to miss a class, to ensure the parents know how they are behaving and performing academically

it is needed for basically anything and for good reason

I also have no idea what LOlwat is going on about

You might be right about musk. But he SAID that the trans kid protection bill was the final straw, so I can still judge him for his social ideology even if it was truly something about financial incentives

Rick doesn't seem to internalize that during the red scare hed be reported for being a China fetishist and would be on government watch lists or worse.

firstly, lol a rickroll who recently put me on ignore going around liking people who quote me. Classic.

But I guess you sort of confirm my thesis, somehow in the mind of the far right trans issues is the like litmus test that finally proves their insane conspiracy theories about the left